Post-Modern Architecture:love it or hate it?

[brian.odonnell20]

Did I say that all post modern buildings were ugly? I could have sworn I didn't...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by vandelay

I wonder if critics complained about the comical aping of historical styles in imperial Rome, or Renaissance Florence, or Baroque London.

Of course they didn't. No one dared to think or teach that a building just might not need columns on the front and finials on top until the onset of the industrial revolution where the needs of industrial engineering began to supersede the architectural pleasantries of classicism. Out of such a philosophical environment rose a whole new concept of design call Modernism with a complete and utter rejection of the past. Modernism was basically the first new style since the Greeks invented architecture 5000 years or so ago. Everything in between was just a slightly different version of the previous styles.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i've gotta disagree with you on HWL. over the years it has really grown on me and come to be one of my favorite PoMo works. it's just so ridiculously and absurdly over-scaled that i've come to respect it for its sheer audacity. it really is an amazing sight to behold in person. now, from a functional aspect there is a lot to criticize about it, but some of that blame also lies at the feet of CPL who don't utilize the space as well as they could or should. however, as a work of "what in god's name is that thing?" architecture, it's pretty amazing.

Completely agree. HWL is one of the most ridiculous, over the top, and whimsical structures ever built to serve a practical purpose. For that ballsy-ness I give it an A and am proud that it calls Chicago home. I just wish the interior were a bit more grand and had less obscure hallways. The first time I saw I went "holy shit what the hell is that, I'm going inside it". When I got to the front door I was utterly disappointed to find that the the "front door" led into a drywall-lined corridor that zig-zagged to a measly lobby in the middle of the building. That was quite a let down.

[brian.odonnell20]

I would never like a building just for its "ballsyness"... I like them for their design aesthetic. That building in Chicago is ugly. Not because it isn't "bold" or doesn't "have character," but because the design and color scheme just isn't good.

When a building has to "grow on you," that means its ugly, but you look at it so much that you develop an ugly taste for it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

When a building has to "grow on you," that means its ugly, but you look at it so much that you develop an ugly taste for it.

i totally and completely disagree with that. when a building has to "grow on you", it means it needs to age like a fine scotch before it becomes palatable.

maybe you enjoy drinking cheap rot-gut whiskey right out of the still, but me, i'll go for the 16 year lagavulin every time

[brian.odonnell20]

I don't really get that. Buildings don't get better with age. You're using the wrong comparison.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

I don't really get that. Buildings don't get better with age. You're using the wrong comparison.

i find that buildings do get better with age (the good ones anyway) and that the comparison is apt.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

I don't really get that. Buildings don't get better with age. You're using the wrong comparison.

Buildings often do get better with age simply because it takes time for culture and society to accept radical new designs and aesthetics. Lets face it, there is very little science to aesthetics, its mostly philosophy and personal preference. Therefore, when something completely radical is built, most people respond with "oh my god how ugly!". However, as the building ages and people begin to view it as an acceptable style of construction, then the building becomes a "classic". Just look at the beautiful old proto-skyscrapers that were built by Jenny, Sullivan, and others. They were considered monstrosities by many when they were built because of their massive size, non-classical proportions, and toned down decoration. It took almost 70 years and the destruction of many of these buildings (the Chicago Stock Exchange) for the general public to realize how truly beautiful and worthy of protection they really are.

This is just a fact of life. Every style is popular among a small sect of the population (usually engineers, architects, and aesthetics) when it is built. Then the style falls out of favor and becomes "dated" over the next decade or two. Then buildings in that style become run down and dirty about 40 years after they are built and begin to reach the end of their depreciation cycle. That's when the slaughter begins. It becomes more economically feasible to destroy these buildings and build new ones than to renovate the old. Eventually so many of the buildings are destroyed that people begin to appreciate them again even if its just because they are now rare again and then an outcry ensues that halts the destruction of such buildings. We see this happen over and over again with every style. We are just turning that last corner from "destruction" to "appreciation/outcry" right now with a lot of modern buildings. Modernism is just coming back into style and retro styles like futurism, brutalism, and general modernism are very popular among the avant guard even though the developers are leading them to slaughter right now. I imagine we'll soon see a popular outcry to halt the destruction of buildings in the vein of Michael Reese hospital in Chicago.

[brian.odonnell20]

touchet .

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Over the years [HWL] has...come to be one of my favorite PoMo works. it's just so ridiculously and absurdly over-scaled that i've come to respect it for its sheer audacity. it really is an amazing sight to behold in person. ... [A]s a work of "what in god's name is that thing?" architecture, it's pretty amazing.

Here here. HWL is amazing in its setting; audacious and proud.

[Matthew]

When I think of Post Modern, I think of the amazing art deco inspired design from the 1990's. I really love these buildings. It seems most new high-rises today are glass boxes. A few of these new glass towers are well designed, but I see so many boxes today, compared to beautifully crowned skyscrapers with multiple setbacks in the late 1980s and 1990s. And at night, when these buildings' crowns and setbacks are flooded in light, they usually become the stars of their skylines.

[Elliot Bishop]

When I think of post-modernist architecture, it makes me think of the tower blocks of 1960s Glasgow. It wasn't so much the design that condemned them to becoming harbingers of social and economic deprivation, but I forever associate them with generations of suffering. In truth, modernism and post-modernism are such broad terms, they can never really convey the wealth of ideas, design processes and intentions behind them

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by vandelay

I wonder if critics complained about the comical aping of historical styles in imperial Rome, or Renaissance Florence, or Baroque London.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Of course they didn't.

Actually, there was a fair bit of complaining about haphazardly throwing together design elements from disparate styles.

Side note: that kind of thing has been going on for millennia; see the facades of Petra which threw together design elements from around the middle east and Egypt.

[King Kill 'em]

Here's my theory on postmodernism. There's pros and cons to it.

The good thing was it challenged the modernism ideas that buildings need to have order and decoration is sin. The bad thing is the decoration of it often used unatractive colors and ugly ornaments. However I think its biggest flaw was that despite its rejection of modernism, many postmodern buildings still didn't do much to improve street level interactions between pedestrians and the building.

Overall despite some postmodernist buildings being ugly, you can see that the architects tried and I respect that because they led to a rebirth of experimental architecture.

Side note: I want to be clear that I don't hate modernism. Personally I think modernism only works on a small scale. The kinds of modernist buildings I don't like are the ones which are perfect rectangles, are white or grey, and have windows which don't let in enough light, making it look like a prison from far away. Very tall modernist buildings like this just make me think of a dystopian world with an overbearing authoritarioan big brother government that holds too much power over the citizens they've brainwashed.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Elliot Bishop

When I think of post-modernist architecture, it makes me think of the tower blocks of 1960s Glasgow. It wasn't so much the design that condemned them to becoming harbingers of social and economic deprivation, but I forever associate them with generations of suffering. In truth, modernism and post-modernism are such broad terms, they can never really convey the wealth of ideas, design processes and intentions behind them

those are modernist, not postmodernist. postmodernism began in the 70s but didn't really become mainstream until the early 80s, long after those were built.