These look a lot like the houses in my area (I live in the Kingsway neighbourhood, in Toronto).
The Kingsway was a deliberately planned subdivision built in the 1920s-1930s, using an ecclectic style of faux Tudor and English cottage influences. I kinda like it, because every house is different without being jarring … the houses also tend not to have exposed garages (they were set in the backyards).
Here are some from my neighbourhood:
Just for the hell of it, a bridge over the Humber (near my neighbourhood) which I find very pleasing:
Laughable is being kind. It’s ludicrous beyond belief – hell, when I first looked at that picture, I thought someone had Photoshopped that thing from an architect’s rendering into a photo of the original museum. Look at the base – doesn’t it look like some random object uneasily perched on a fake setting, rather than a real building firmly set on a real foundation? No way, no way could anyone have ever thought that was a good idea!
Honestly, the buildings in that picture are all equally ugly to me. Just because Libeskind’s is shinier doesn’t make it any more pleasant to look at. Of course, it’s difficult to judge what it’s like from the inside.
Also, I don’t think the style lends itself well to homes. As others have said, pictures I’ve seen of such houses don’t look like anyone could actually live there.
Confession of bias time: I grew up in Melrose, Massachusetts, a small town north of Boston noted for its plethora of Victorian-era homes, in a Queen Anne house with lots of nooks and crannies, plenty of quirky details (including four fireplaces on the first and second floor, each with its own distinctive mantle and tiling). So sterile, regimented boxes in sterile, regimented wastelands of tired grass and parking pavement bore the crap out of me.
This 1999 writeup of a walking tour has some clickable photos and lots of descriptions of the housing stock, including houses back to the 1700s. The 2000 walk writeup features more photos of other examples, some of them simply magnificent. These tours tend to stick to the Highlands section, where the bigger, finer houses are, but even in the southern end of town, the blue-collar area where the houses sit tightly snugged together and are far humbler than their hillside cousins, there are scores of well-made, nicely proportioned, inventively detailed Victorians.
Oh, and I grew up across the street and two houses down from this bit of gingerbread. It’s one of the featured houses in this tour, which covered the neighborhood I grew up in.
So am I prejudiced? You bet! But having grownup denjoying the visual equivalent of a Thanksgiving feast, I’m not about to settle for MREs.
Hey! I used to live only a couple of blocks from that first tour! We looked at houses in Melrose when we were moving out of that apartment. There were lots of gorgeous houses (and some ugly ones – not everything in Melrose is anarchitectural marvel), but we either couldn’t afford them, or else couldn’t afford to buy them and then be able to pay to fix them up. so we live in the next town over, now. In an architecturally undistinguished but affordable house.
No shit?!? Which town – Malden? Stoneham? Saugus? Wakefield?
Yeh, there’s crap older buildings in Melrose, too, and mid to late 20th century blandly bleah intrusions, but overall it’s a visual feast for anyone who likes that era of architecture. Bonus – the downtown’s been dragged back from mall-induced decay and is now thriving.
This is not a solely modern failing, though. The example that I can best think of is the Massachusetts State House. Alas, I can’t seem to find any pictures that show the three distinct styles of the building. Most of them focus on the (Federalist, I think) oldest, central portion. This photograph shows some of the most modern additions. But nothing shows a building at war with itself if you can’t see the yellow Victorian addition behind what I think is really a lovely original building.
ETA: I meant to add this earlier
So long as the Albert Memorial survives, you can’t claim that the worst of Victorian architecture is gone.
Maybe so, but there’s more to a building than its inside. There’s more to it than its outside. How it relates to the rest of its built environment is of crucial importance to its value to the community. That’s one of the worst things about modern architects – they tend to envision a building as something that stands all on its own, like this.
And look at the Hunter Gallery from the outside: The modernist annex, besides being stark and intimidating and harsh on its own terms – not at all the message a place for the display of beautiful things should be sending to the world – bears no discernible relationship to the original structure. Doesn’t that strike a jarring note to you?
Now, I ask you, which style better pleases the eye and enhances the neighborhood? Which better relates to the streets around it? And which more clearly sends the message, “This is a welcoming place of knowledge and learning”?
In all honesty? I’ve got mixed reactions to all four buildings.
The first, The Seattle Public Library, looks interesting. I can’t say that it fits with its surroundings, but it also avoids what bothers me about your other examples. To wit: it doesn’t look like a prison.
The third and fourth example you have are traditional looking library buildings, I admit, and I’m sure that they fit in with their surroundings better. Contrariwise, they evoke impressions of sturdily built prisons, meant to keep what’s on the inside in, and that on the outside out. A little closer examination shows the large windows meant to allow natural lighting in, which would mitigate that initial impression. But they remind me more of prisons than any building I’d label welcoming. And that is a common complaint I have with many library buildings.
The second example, however, screams repurposed factory*. Again, it seems to fit in well with it’s locale, with a minimum of dissonance. But while I find it the least intimidating of the buildings shown, to me, it’s still not what I’d call welcoming. Again, it does have the large, multi-story windows to allow a large amount of natural light, so a closer look does reveal that it is designed with features that I’d call “librarian.”
I dislike to make judgments about a building based solely on architectural models. The impression I have is that a model and even drawings will often prove to be a ‘concept’ piece rather than being an accurate representation of how the finished structure will look. So, I have to say that my final judgment about the Czech National Library (or The Infected Snot Building) isn’t in. For whatever quirks of personality I have, I have to admit I find it a building that I’d probably consider, in isolation, to be very welcoming. Anything that silly looking couldn’t be anything but welcoming.
Where I feel it fails is not in its own looks, but in how alien it is compared to the buildings around it - one of the pictures for it on the Eyesore of the Month page shows it in relation to the other buildings in the neighborhood, and egads, that’s just jarring.
*Well, okay, when I saw it I screamed “Cooper Union!” Which doesn’t seem to have a single repurposed factory, at all. Still, it reminds me of various factory buildings that I’ve seen and been in that have been repurposed for other uses. A class of buildings that I find, personally, fascinating and endlessly interesting to explore. In part because you never can guess what internal juxtapositions of features and uses you’ll find.
Except, as other have pointed out to you, there are many reliable ways to evaluate a building. By just about any of these, including an inherent sense of what is beautiful, most modern architecture is a dismal failure.
Please point out to me where I’ve ever denied the merits of this statement. The point that I’ve maintained, and which you’ve ignored, is that modern produces a disgustingly high ratio of dismal failures for every success.
Because the Freedom Tower, which thankful has been modified from awkward to merely bland, vaguely echoes the proportions the Statue of Liberty, it does not qualify as any sort of meaningful tribute.
Further, how does this or this show any respect to its surroundings? If you ask me, they are trying their best to belittle their surroundings and disorient their patrons.
I’m really not that hard to please. I like the majority of examples of every major architectural style practiced in the U.S. up until about 1940ish. For domestic architecture, I tend to prefer the Victorian styles. For municipal buildings, I tend to like Beaux Arts. For small commercial buildings I like a variety of styles. I pretty passionately hate bauhaus, international (thought I do like some of its interiors), and brutalism; I’m mixed about recent stuff. I despise the “starchitectes” and love Robert A.M. Stern. In between the two there’s stuff I like and don’t like. It not a matter of traditionalist vs. modern. I like this, for instance (although having never seen it from street-level, which is where commercial buildings have to be evaluated from, I withhold my final judgment). Really, I can find merits in any building that was built primarily for people, not critics, fadists, and magazines.
Well I am hesitant to step in here, but as an Architect with 25+ years of experience I thought perhaps I can add another perspective to this discussion. There isn’t an easy quick answer to this question, and forgive the length of my response, but I am trying to address the issues raised.
Many of my thoughts though are reflected in this earlier thread:
Now I don’t disagree there are many ugly modern buildings, but the same is true of almost any style. Unfortunately the buildings that you all are citing as wonderful pieces (and I too love those buildings!) will not be built in today’s market. Several reasons for that, with the chief one being economics and the ‘greening’ of the world of Architecture (I am referring to the LEED movement).
Buildings back in the hey day were sited by the street grids and were built with little or no concern to the environment. Most of the buildings have very inefficient space allocation and in energy use. Beautiful buildings, but for the most part not very adaptable to new uses or the environment. Most of the beautiful buildings noted are 8-10 stories in height and use labor intensive building products in their construction. Brick is just not cost effective for taller buildings.
Couple that with the cost of construction and the modern movement started by the International Movement and the BauHaus and you end up with many of the buildings you see today. However I do believe that the buildings cited in this thread are exceptionally ugly examples of modern Architecture. Architects have there share of ego based artists like many fields but I don’t believe that all Architecture built today can be classified that way.
Lets look at LEED. There is a strong movement in Architecture (and many other industries) to green up. To use materials more wisely and in general to act friendlier to this old planet we all live on. LEED is a system developed by USGBC.org to award certification to buildings that meet this rating system. This system dictates many aspects of building design. Beautiful terracotta or stone from Italy might be wonderful, but in general products are often selected based on relative location to the project site to reduce impacts to the planet. Just one example of the restrictions placed on a newer building that older buildings didn’t have to contend with.
Another factor is the cost of materials. Construction costs have skyrocketed over the last 8-10 years. Much of our steel is going to China and India (or should I say staying there) and this has greatly increased the cost domestically for steel products. Concrete, wood, copper, etc have all skyrocketed as well. Much of this is demand, but wood increased due to Katrina and other influences. Buildings that cost $125 SF 8 years ago are now costing $250 SF for the same level of finishes, etc.
Now given these factors it doesn’t mean you can’t design wonderful spaces and beautiful buildings. But we haven’t added the two other players in this field and discussed their infuence on Design. Owners (typically Develpers) and Contractors. Developers are building buildings to make money. Simple as that. The LEED influence I discussed above is there because it is currently marketable and that is why developers are buying into it (when they should buy into it because it is a good thing!). But they are in business to make a profit and thus they want to maximize the building envelope which results in building saleable square footage EVERYWHERE. Recesses, and walkways cost them money–they aren’t going to spend that money unless they see an advantage to their bottom line.
Or they are Design Committees and we all know how well anything done by committee is! You try and design a building that has 10 people with 10 different agendas
Then you throw the General Contractor into that equation. Construction has changed a lot since I started with the GC now doing a lot of Design Build–which essentially takes many factors of the design out of the hands of the Architect and into the hands of an entity who is also concerned about the bottom line.
However given all these factors the specific buildings you all cited, well they suck for the most part. I would agree (except the Seattle Library which actually functions in my opinion very well). But these are aesthetic issues and everyone will have their opinion–but I just want to point out that it isn’t always the ego of the Architect involved that dictates what the final building looks like.
I’ve been avoiding posting here because I don’t have much of substance except my own opinions, but quite frankly I like modern architecture quite a bit. The Neutra house that people claim can’t be lived in looks pretty comfortable to me, and for the inside of my house I prefer furniture from IKEA – not because of the cost, but the modernist designs genuinely appeal to me. Now, the weirder buildings and concept art look strange to me, but most of what actually gets built is not nearly as upsetting to my eye as it is to others. I agree, though, the infected snot building looks out of place in any context except maybe Disneyworld, and Frank Gehry’s house is just…well, it’s been said already.
The other libraries you linked to are not at all inviting to me. They don’t look like buildings that I would feel welcome or comfortable in, and would really put me off.
I chalk it up to personal taste, though. I just dislike older or retro architecture and vastly prefer clean lines used in interesting ways.
The Tampa Museum of Art has been looking for a new building for years now. Starchitect Rafael Vinoly was hired in 2001 to design a new one, but his modernistic design was widely unpopular and proved too expensive. Here’s a pic of the latest planned design. by Stanley Saitowitz, likewise modernist – “a metal box sitting on a glass pedestal”. It’s not at all ugly, but it’s kind of boring. More importantly, it looks, well, it doesn’t much look like a museum (nor like anything else, for that matter) – especially not compared with the art museum’s interim location, which probably once was a factory or office building, but still looks more like a museum than anything anyone seems capable of designing these days.
On single family homes the dollar and rising costs are what determines the bland look that you are seeing in the suburbs. Most single family housing is NOT done by Architects. Very few are in fact. Cascadia a development outside of Seattle has an Architect designed clause to by in there–haven’t seen the results myself, but have heard from other Architects that there are some nice buildings in this subdivision.
There are Architects designing wonderful older style buildings. Here is a link to an Architect who designs bungalow style housing that is equal if not better then many of the bungalows you see in older neighborhoods;
The problem is that this house is likely in the $150 to $200 SF range without land costs. Which would place this 3000 SF home at $600,000 without the building lot. Similar sized homes that are blander and uglier are in the $85 to $125 SF range—which do you think gets built in the typical neighborhoods of suburbia?
I personally believe that we can design homes to look like this but on a smaler scale–but not with Americans wanting 2000-3000 SF homes. The original bungalows were 800 to 1000 SF—not many families to day are willing to live in that small of home in my opinion.
