You’re correct that, in the strict sense, the technical knowledge is still all out there somewhere, in physical examples still standing, in a few books, in the minds and hands of a few practitioners.
What I meant was that the great majority of the people who build our buildings now, and make decisions about how buildings are built and arranged–I include city planners, “developers,” architects, tradesmen, and even house-buyers–have lost the kind of cultural sensibility that made traditional structures and communities so coherent–so functional and beautiful at the same time.
Most of us still have a sense of architectural beauty. We recognize beautiful structures, places that work harmoniously with the needs of our lives. There is often surprisingly consistent agreement about which of two built examples is more welcoming, more suffused with life–even though people often can’t articulate why, exactly.
Yet most of us also live, work, spend our days and our money, in places that are not so beautiful, and which are sometimes seriously dysfunctional as well–buildings and environments which make us unhappy in various ways. Why is this? In short, we have mostly “forgotten” how to do better.
You seem to be under the impression that the beautifully designed buildings surviving from past centuries were the rule rather than the exception. Humanity didn’t all live in Blenheim Palace, you know. Throughout history, the vast majority of people have lived in decrepid villages or filthy slums; all in all, most buildings and ALL cities are much better designed now than they were in the past. Sure, there’s room for imrovement - I have no love for modern American suburbs, for instance - but don’t romanticise the past.
Agreed. Furthermore, the simple fact that people tend to tear down crappy buildings means that it’s frequently (not always) the best examples of old architecture which remain. So it’s easy to look at them and think the Victorians sure knew what they were doing, but that’s because you didn’t see the Victorian suburbs.
Frankly, when you’re talking about an aesthetic subject (which architecture is, in large part), there’s really no such thing as ‘everything’s been done’. There are an infinite number of new architectural styles out there - it’s just that they don’t mesh with current sensibilities. Given enough time, and shifts in fashion, new trends will emerge. Count on it.
There are always new techniques of building and new materials being developed, and these do lead to new styles. While I don’t care for Gehry or Libeskind in the slightest, their particular style is made possible by technical advances. I can see how someone more enamoured of “form follows function” rather than Deconstruction, could use those same technical aspects (CAD, titanium cladding, non-linear shapes) to produce something more to my taste, and less like a Tim Burton set design commissioned by Skynet.
It’s all about distinctiveness, isn’t it? Modern architects seem to be obsessed with the idea of originality above all else. Instead of taking what works and improving on it, these “artists” insist on constructing buildings that look like nothing anyone has seen before - as if that’s something someone wants from a building. It’s absurd.
I also belive that we are due for a revivval of historic styles. Gehry is passe-he’s even been sued for his MIT disaster.
Really, designing something that is both ugly and useless is crazy-at least FL Wright though about conserving space, and making a house livable.
Gehry’s work combines the worst of all worlds-sorta like “Form follows disfunction”.
That is hardly science fiction anymore. Stewart Brand was at a Genetic Engineering conference and said one of the things on their to-do lists was “grow a house”.
Of course, there will be intermediate steps. The first step is to come up with trees that produce better lumber that is more resistant to rot and insects. Eventually the phrases house plant or tree house will take on a whole new meaning with built in waste recycling and bio-luminescent lighting systems.
Of course some of the promise of nano-technology will be pretty wonderful also. Diamond as a building material or television screens that can be painted on the wall.
Have you ever noticed that almost all of these “star architect” structures are public buildings like library museums? The only people willing to pay for them are those who aren’t using their own money.
Public officials are still clients - 'snot like they say “hey, Frank, build us something, anything, we don’t care, just make it vaguely museum-y!” - in fact, usually there’s a tender process or even a more public competition, like the WTC-replacement one. And they vet the final design.
It would be more accurate to say that star architects are hired to design structures that are meant to stand out. When corporations want to build grand edifices to themselves, they hire the same superstars, as do universities, private foundations, etc. The IAC Headquarters, the Bilboa Guggenheim, the MIT Stata Center — privately owned, yet all designed by Gehry. In the case of the Guggenheim Foundation, the Wiki page indicates that its largest donors are on its board, so your criticism really doesn’t hold water.
I agree with those who say new technology will lead to new designs. Look at a modern city skyline - you’re looking at architecture made possible by the development of steel and electricity.
Yes, but will the dimensions of windows and doors change? Will the height of ceilings be different?
Andreas Palladio laid down the rules of architecture in the 16th century-unless you want traingular doorways, you are probably using the proportions worked out by Palladio.
Look, no offense, but that’s just silly. Palladio dealt with a very particular (and arbitrary) set of geometric relationships that have little to do with universal truths, and everything to do with extant architectural types and contemporary building materials. Yes, there’s a limited range of door shapes that are useful for human occupation, but if you’re going to claim that a Palladian Villa is the same as the Empire State Building on account of both having rectangular doors, well, I don’t think anything I can say will convince you otherwise.
The point is, architecture is all about fashion. You may think Gehry designs hideous buildings (I know I do), but you can’t say they’re not novel*. I can understand a certain nostalgia for classical architecture - I suffer from it myself - but to dismiss anything newer as irrelevant is rather glib.
Anyways, there’s a lot of work being done that’s simply not on the same scale as Gehry that you’ll probably never notice. At least in the Bay Area, a lot of the sexy new stuff being done is all about small-scale projects, with a heavy emphasis on materials and geometry. Sure, it’s not revolutionizing the form of buildings, but that’s not the only thing there is in architecture.
*Well, okay, they used to be; just because he’s a talentless hack who repeats himself, doesn’t make the original innovations irrelevant.
Perhaps, but what remains, that anybody wants, that is not yet technologically possible? I mean, you could make everything even bigger, but what’s the point?
The best we can hope of new technology here is that it makes it so much cheaper to build things that apartment rents and single-family home prices are within the reach of a kid working part-time at McDonald’s.
Who knows what will become technologically possible? Who in 1800 would have predicted skyscrapers? Even in 1900, with the technology in existence, most people would have had a difficult time extrapolating the next century of arcxhitecture.
One possibility is that architecture might become less static. Technology might make it possible for buildings to become flexible. An office building might expand during the day when it’s in use and then contract at night when it’s empty.
