Art Theory is a big factor in it for sure and I can’t disagree with you on that issue. But it is only one of many factors. I also think the design committees on both the client side and city sides are a factor. If you have some time, go to a Design Review Board meeting in your local community–it will be enlightening!
The ego on the Architects side is a huge factor too (I like to think of myself as a more humble Architect, but I have a pretty large ego—it comes with the territory!).
I would take exception to the idea that people don’t like modern architecture as stated in the OP.
Take for instance the new structures in my city.
The Guthrie Theater. No picture can do the place justice. It’s a wonderful, invigorating place to be. The public has responded by snapping up tickets to performances. It’s the talk of the town and a jewel of the community.
We have the expansion of the Walker Art Center. Another critically lauded building that has been a big success.
Then there is Block E. This was the splendid opportunity to develop an entire block of prime downtown space. It was pitched as something that would redefine the way the world would look at Minneapolis. It would be our Times Square, but without the problems. It opened with a five star hotel in it, a multi-plex theater, can’t-miss restaurants like The Hard Rock Cafe and a whole bunch of other stuff. The promise that this would become some sort of epicenter of the Twin Cities has not come close to happening. They eschewed good architecture and tried the supposed crowd-pleasing angle. It has columns, porticos and other “classy” stuff up the wazoo in an effort to evoke classical European architecture that people in this thread seem to be clamoring for. The “arrogant” architectural community blanched at the place, but the public? Well, they have stayed away too. The multi-plex movie theater went out of business. The only talk I ever hear about Block E is that people hate it and avoid it. It’s hard to even find pictures of it online. This was the best I could do. No one wants to bother with looking at it I guess. It is a huge waste of a what was a golden opportunity.
But those Architects I cited are the major players in the Seattle market and represent the vast majority of Architecture being built in this city. Those Architects get huge commissions and work on huge projects. Callison is like the 8th largest firm in the world and NBBJ is in the top 25 large firms. Cutler did Bill Gates house—no links, sorry.
I submit that the architecture referenced in this thread represents less then 5% of the Architecture being built today. I don’t have a cite for this other then my own 25 years of experience. In Seattle we have a few big name projects built–the EMP, the Public Library and the SAM. I am sure there are a few others, but those are off the top of my head. So of the hundreds of new buildings in this city, you have three designed by big name Architects. The rest is designed by those firms I listed, so how can we sit here and say that good Architecture isn’t being built? I think that concept is what I am struggling with.
I’d want to learn more about it to form an opinion. On first glance it looks pretty interesting although the colors make it look cartoony.
I don’t think I’ve set forth any standards at all. I’m trying to encourage people to get past they’re personal tastes a little bit when evaluating buildings.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear; I too think that today, Starchitects aside, there is a lot of good architecture going on. This is probably the most optimistic that I’ve been about architecture in my life. I actually think that we are seeing the beginning of a quality style along the lines of the buildings that you linked to. Developers of urban projects, it seems, have been picking good architecture. Here are 2 of the more recent projects in my neck of the woods:
Hartford 21 In the style of the links you posted. This building is great, but its undoubtedly modern. My only complaint is that the recessed part at the top, which you can’t really see in that picture, is covered in some kind of grey siding instead of either glass or stone like the rest of the building.
The Hartford Marriott A little more traditional in its design that the first building, it works because its a modern take on a more traditional design that doesn’t look at all cheap or tacky.
I think that the 5% you referenced disproportionately make up a big part of the “show” commissions like college buildings or museums. It’s when we get buildings picked by design committee that the real stinkers show up. Here is a rendering the CT Science Center, which was the subject of a design contest and is being built next to the Marriott. Believe it or not, this was by far the best of the best of the 4 finalists. I guess part of the problem is that the buildings that are supposed to be the best axiomatically wind up being some of the worst.
Ummmmmmmmmmm…architects are responsible for the provision of bins in toilet areas? I very much doubt there’s anything that specific in what Foster provided. Likewise a lot of the other things, such as ‘no soft surfaces’ in the atrium. Don’t they tend to be things like seats, rather than walls and floors and glass? And isn’t poor plumbing most likely the fault of the, errrrr, plumbers?
The design of lecture theatres, I grant you, sounds thoroughly flawed. I would be interested to know, however, if plans were made available for consultation to the people who would be using the building. If not, then it’s certainly a design fault. If a flawed design of a room for specialised use was accepted by the specialists themselves, however, then who would be to blame?
I guess that depends on your definition of “rejected.” Call me crazy, but I suspect that the eclipse of the Doric temple had more to do with the decline of Greco-Roman civilization, rather than any particular rejection of those aesthetic principles (which as you note, were embraced again by the Renaissance and happily studied and referenced for a few more centuries until the Box Era.)
Thank you for this remark, as it neatly encapsulates the weight of your historical analysis. The Turks stored ammunition inside the Parthenon, therefore they must have thought it was ugly. That’s brilliant. Yeah, the Turks obviously didn’t have any respect for the Parthenon. It’s not like they used it as a mosque for 200 years or anything.
Technically, it gets its name from the fact that Renaissance Italians thought it was ugly and crude 400 years later. Shockingly, Renaissance Italians expressed a preference for Classical Greco-Roman style over that of medieval France. This may have had something to do with the fact that Italy was being invaded by France every other Tuesday.
The Renaissance ABSOLUTELY REJECTED “lessons from the past,” and created a whole new aesthetic.
The Renaissance ABSOLUTELY REJECTED “lessons from the past,” and created a whole new aesthetic.
Okay. I’m sorry for wasting your time, then.
Look, you and others have suggested that what happened at the Bauhaus (& other places) in the 1920s was wrong because it was revolutionary, and architecture is supposed to change more slowly.
(By the way, what about the idea that somebody like Norman Foster is following an 80+ year tradition?)
I’m arguing that architecture has frequently been revolutionary:
-in Augustinian Rome
-in Ravenna and Constantinople under Justinian
-in & around Paris in the 12th century
-in Florence in the Renaissance
-in Rome with Michelangelo, Bernini & Borromini
-in France with, particularly, Le Notre
-When Jefferson brought neoclassicism to America (he rejected EVERY local tradition)
-and we could name a dozen more…
Each of these rejected the (immediate) past and any “obviously sound principles” that might have been apparent at the time.
On further consideration, I believe this comment expresses nicely the problem with certain practitioners of Modern architecture.
My comment to Hakuna Matata:
assumed a scenario along these lines: I would seek a proposal for a house based on Modern design which took into consideration a semi-rural New England setting and an owner’s preference for the Shaker aesthetic, including the incorporation of certain Shaker furnishings. Based on what HM has said in this thread, I’d expect back a proposal from him, or the other architects whose work he linked to, that harmoniously incorporated the Shaker vocabulary into a Modern expression, because HM and the others he cites care about what their clients want and listen to them; they care that their buildings meet their owners’ needs, both practically and aesthetically. They want to meet their clients’ needs, not just erect monuments to their own artistic genius.
As it happens, I’ve been in homes where what I’ve hypothesized has been elegantly realized, and the result is breath-taking. Shaker and Modern sensibilities in fact work well together, in the right hands.
If I brought such a proposal to a starchitect with Key Lime Guy’s attitude, and got that kind of response, well, that’s one less commission for him, and one more voice condemning the arrogance of Modern architects.
The Walter Gropius House (Lincoln, MA), is a design I love. I wish builder made these, instead of colonials, Cape Cod Houses, and all that old stuff!
This is probably true, but then again isn’t one of the purposes of musuems and Universities to push the envelope of current thought? Of any type of building, frankly in my opinion these seem the most appropriate type to push the envelope. I also agree with you about the committee design! Man those are the worst. Churches are notorious for this in my experience.
I should disclose my professional experience is mainly residential in nature–mainly multi family and mixed use. But I have worked on a wide variety of buildings in the past including churches, office buildings, etc. My clients tend to be a single entity, but they are always about money. I honestly wish it was different, but Architecture is both an art and a business profession.
Bummer, man!
Tell you what, when I hit the lottery and get to build my dream house, I’ll fly you in and we’ll have a grand old time seeing what aesthetics over money can create. I’ve got these great ideas… 
great now I have Ivana Trump as my client :smack:
You’ll never get me to like a flat roof in a snowy climate like this.
No, it’s a striking exterior. I have to confess that, for me, that jutting canopy suffers from its concept having been banally and even badly realized over the decades in enough buildings to have made it difficult to appreciate it for itself, without the clang associations.
The interior shots I Googled are elegant.
I disagree that that these were all revolutions. Justinian architecture was Roman building techniques combined with Greek Styling. Jefferson’s early buildings retained a huge amount of influence from Palladio and Gibbs. His later incorporation of Greek elements was because he (looking backward, gasp!) wanted the U.S. to emulate Athenian ideals, and move away from English styles, not change for its own sake.
Even if I were to buy that all of these instances were completely revolutionary, couldn’t it be that the Bauhaus et al. tried to be revolutionary and failed? Ford tried to revolutionize cars with the Edsel. How did that work out? We have pointed out multiple reasons why a lot of modern architecture fails in pretty much every respect other than being the set for a photo. You continue to hold up innovation for its own sake as some kind of ideal.
:mad:
I guess, but like we said before, if you do that with a building and fail, you are stuck with the result. My own personal view on museums and universities is that they are supposed to be grand temples of learning, so a more monumental and traditional approach suits them best.
I believe mr Ralph was being sarcastic. He can correct me if I am incorrect. Actually I personally like this house, but it is not something that the majority of people would like. Put into a suburban setting, not good. In its location–a very striking piece of Architecture. Context is an important element in play here.
True, but most buildings have a life of 100 years or less. Only really good examples last longer and then only if there is some sort of historic issue in play. If any of my buildings that I have been involved with are here 100 years from now it will be shocking.
And I guess my take on this is that you as the designer (or other Architects) learn from both the mistakes and successes. The main difference between us and other artists is that our art is VERY public.
No I don’t and I’ve never said anything of the sort. Architecture should innovate in response to changing social conditions, new technologies, new philosophical understandings of ourselves and the universe, etc… (which is why the neo-Shaker notion is so absurd)
Not ‘for its own sake’.
