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?:smack:
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
I’m sorry, but that looks like the Sydney Opera House exploded in a horrible concrete-to-sheet-aluminum alchemical transformation to me.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
:eek: Ya gotta be fuckin’ kiddin’ me!