I think that when modern architecture really works is when there is some element of it that connects back to the things we are evolved to desire. For instance, many of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings are not symmetrical and they have straight lines/edges, but they also tend to have pleasing proportions and are made out of materials that are warm and earthy rather than cold & hard.
The Schermerhorn isn’t the Taj Mahal.
Thinking about some of the points made in this thread, and what I wrote above, I wonder if there is a reason that modern architecture seems to be more of a success in public buildings than in private homes (by modern, I mean what we think of as truly out-of-the-box modern, such as Geary’s work). Maybe it’s because we have a certain desire for our communities to be progressive and barrier-breaking, while at the same time we want our own homes to have more of a feeling of safe coziness? While many homes these days are not exactly traditional (especially in the interior layouts, as mentioned earlier in the thread), they don’t tend to be glass boxes, either. Such homes are still considered pretty avant-garde. But it’s not unusual to see public buildings or large multi-unit buildings designed that way. I’m wondering if there’s a psychological element to that.
Maybe, but they still suck. The man couldn’t have designed his way out of a wet paper bag.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
And I agree with you.
So we win, right?
If only it worked like that! 
I guess I was trying to make the point that smiling bandit’s comment didn’t seem to be designed to move the conversation forward…it was just an unsupported and unsupportable personal opinion. Personally, FLW’s aesthetic isn’t necessarily my cup of tea…but I can still appreciate the fact that he almost single-handedly revolutionized residential design.
You know, this got ignored when I pointed it out, but there’s a pretty massive historical precedent to have homes designed and built drastically differently from public works. Think of mud huts and castles, or wattle-and-daub and gothic cathedrals, or even inconspicuous early-1900’s houses and all those public neoclassical buildings dotting North America. Residential architecture serves different purposes than public architecture, so of course it looks different. Plus there’s a lower budget for an architect, which makes less space for architectural expression. Plus, using new materials and techniques causes real problems for building addons and making repairs that aren’t as big a deal for larger buildings. Plus, just about any modern home is going to have aspects of modern architecture in it anyway.
That said, you certainly have a point that people will be more conservative when they’re building a comfortable (familiar -> comfortable) space.
ETA: I’m not a big fan of FLW either, though Falling Water certainly looks brilliant.
The Seattle Library keeps getting brought up. It’s actually not really well liked by people who actually use it. It’s the main, downtown library where the books are. So it is being used. But functionally it fails (see here and here for some examples. Every so often another article like that gets published in the paper.) The colors inside the library are headache inducing and the spaces aren’t good for getting a book and reading. The screw, which is theoretically a good idea, isn’t navigable because there are multiple shelving systems. It’s basically a mess.
There may be great arguments for modern architecture. The Seattle Library isn’t one of them.
Waitaminnit, now! Esthetic standards are not so slippery as that! We might differ in our esthetic judgments, we might disagree on what the abstract, objective standards of beauty are, but most of us agree there are some.
Regarding which, see The WHYS of a Philosophical Scrivener, by Martin Gardner, Chapter 4: “Beauty: Why I Am Not an Esthetic Relativist.”
‘Most of’? Isn’t that a bit of an assumption?
I don’t think you can find *anything *that you think qualifies as obejctively beautiful without finding lots of people disagreeing with it, be it architecture, painting, poetry, music, movie stars or any other subject. Therefore objective beauty does not exist IMO.
Oh, and count me in the camp of people who love a lot of modern architecture (including Gehry).
Can you summarize Gardner’s argument? I’m not being contentious … I’m actually curious.
Here’s the problem: you are demonstratably wrong. Most of his designs were utter disasters, because he was unwilling or incapable to consider the practical impact of his design choices. He wanted to make “pretty buildings”. He may have acheived pretty. He failed to make worthwhile buildings.
He had all the engineering knowledge of a drunken ditz prom queen getting laid by her drunker jock boyfriend in the back of his truck.
If I made the claim that his buildings were all masterpieces of engineering skill, you could argue I was demonstrably wrong. However, I wasn’t talking about his engineering skills, I was talking about his success in designing eye-pleasing buildings that weren’t symmetrical. I wouldn’t disagree that engineering a building so that it stands the test of usage is important, but FLW was a true innovator…sometimes when you push the envelope, you push it too far. His brilliance was in conceiving an entirely new direction for residential architecture, and in proprotion and line.
I also have to take strong exception to your statement that “most” of his designs were utter disasters. I live in Oak Park, Illinois, and I see the houses he designed there every day. They are all still standing, and people live in them. I’ve been inside several of them, and they seem to have held up pretty well, considering their age. It’s certainly true that he has had some buildings with major structural problems (Fallingwater is a notable example), but as far as I can tell, these are the minority of his designs.
Huh?
Chartres Cathedral is pretty much perfectly symmetrical apart from the spires, which are surprisingly similar considering one is about 400 years older than the other.
The railway depot consists of what looks to be a perfectly symmetrical main building with a perfectly symmetrical tower stuck onto one side of it to provide a bit of light relief.
The japanese palace looks to be built from an arrangement of symmetrical A-frames, again with some offsets to prevent the whole thing looking too boring.
This seems rather like saying that Westminster Palace is an example of asymmetry because Big Ben and the Victoria Tower aren’t mirrored. Or that the White House can’t be regarded as symmetrical because the North and South Facades don’t match.
Most of his actual innovations failed and nobody uses them, however.
Edit: Actually, I can’t think of a single one which succeeded.
You can’t think of a single one? He pretty much single-handedly invented the concept of homes with open floor plans, which, as pointed out earlier in the thread, is the default for homes these days. Additionally, his overall design aesthetic of long & low, vs. narrow and tall is seen in millions of post-war homes like this one. These elements of Prairie school architecture are ubiquitous in both private and public buildings. So there are two which not only succeeded, but completely revolutionized modern architecture.
It is true-Wright was not a civil enginerr-although he did complete most of a BS CE at the University of wisconsin. His design for the Imperial Hotel (Tokyo) withstodd a devastating aerthquake.
So it cannot be said that Wright was a bad engineer. Look at the Johnson’s Wax building-his mushroom columns withstoof 12 times the design loading.