Contemporary American Architecture

[SD_Phil]

Hey everyone. I'm completely naive here about the good, bad, and ugly about contemporary american architecture and I was wondering if y'all could help me out.

I'm looking for opinions here of course but it would be great if you could tell me who your favorite contemporary american architects (or firms I suppose) are and maybe some of their recent projects, proposals, renderings, sketches, etc?

I wanted to keep this question as open as possible (so purely residential, commercial, or even industrial...hell maybe especially industrial) would be awesome.

I'd love to learn more.

[Cirrus]

I see three primary movements in American architecture today, all of which are capable of producing both excellent and terrible buildings. These are my own terms:

Neo Traditionalism, which provides basically traditional buildings decorated with ornament. This is very popular with the general public and generally hated by academia. Buildings may or may not be historicist, but in any event they have a lot of details organized in a more or less formal arrangement. Neo Traditionalists use a lot brick. In my opinion, the best well-known Neo Traditional group out there is Torti Gallas. Here is an example of one of their buildings.

Neo Modernism, which provides sculptural buildings with clean lines that are generally undecorated, but that function on the idea that the form itself is the decoration. This is very popular with academia and generally unpopular with the public. Neo Modernists use a lot of glass and shiny metals. Frank Gehry is the most famous example, but I'd also put generic glass boxes in this category.

Eco Architecture, which I see as a symbiosis of the other two that provides ornament-like details using sculptural-like clean lines. Designs may or may not be formal, may or may not be traditional, and may or may not be primarily sculptural, but in any event repetition of individually clean elements is often an important means of ornamentation. This tends to be popular in academic circles and gets mixed reaction from the general public. Eco Architects always want to get LEED certified, and like to use a lot of wood, often with green hues. Here are two examples, one of which leans more towards the modern and the other more towards the traditional.

[SD_Phil]

^Thanks for your thoughts Cirrus!

[mikeR]

while I feel that what Cirrus said is correct about architecture in America as a whole I don't think that all of these would be considered contemporary especially the first category.

When I think of contemporary I think of architecture that is moving beyond what has already been thought of and built. Their is also the avant-garde architecture that is quite revolutionary and will eventually help develop a new contemporary architecture. Also I feel that architecture as a whole is fairly international so it is hard to pin down what exactly is American. Does it mean the architect is American, the building is American or the person studied in America. For avant-garde architecture check out this site I think most of their stuff is pretty out their. http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/

Current contemporary work in America I think their are some good examples of that are even post-Gehry. Examples would be OMA, REX, Morphosis, Diller Scofidio +Renfro, Steven Holl to name a few that have recently built significant work but who's work could be considered already dated.

OMA


REX


Morphosis


Diller Scofidio +Renfro


Steven Holl

[mikeR]

also this might give be a good reference for contemporary American Architecture
http://www.archdaily.com/tag/usa/

[Cirrus]

Others may disagree, but I reject the notion that geometric sculpturalism of the type pictured above is any less derivative of the past than traditionalism. The idea is basically the same as the boxes that Meis built 50 years ago. In both cases, the trick is the basic shape of the building. The only difference between what Gehry does today and what Meis did three generations ago is that now we're building goofy shapes instead of boxy ones. Nothing about the base concept has changed at all. It's equivalent to the difference between doing Georgian ornamented Colonial architecture versus Federalist ornamented Colonial architecture; the details are a little different, but intellectually it's identical.

With all due respect, I also think it's incredibly closed-minded to think that formal buildings with ornament can't be contemporary. This building for example belongs in my first category, but can't be called historicist or non-contemporary by any reasonable definition.

Ironically, if The Fountainhead were written today young Mr. Roark would be a traditionalist, and the dogmatic leaders of the profession would be geometric sculpturalists.

[Cirrus]

For clarification, it's not that I think sculptural architecture is bad. I like it just fine. It's just that I reject the notion that it's any more inherently contemporary than traditionalism. Both paradigms are generations old, and both are being tweaked in contemporary ways by contemporary thinkers.

One of them gets a lot more press in contemporary academia, but I think that's a serious and dogmatic flaw of academia.

[jetsetter]

Couple of my favorites:

David M. Schwarz Architects, Inc: http://www.dmsas.com/
Duncan G. Stroik Architect, LLC: http://www.stroik.com/

[mikeR]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Others may disagree, but I reject the notion that geometric sculpturalism of the type pictured above is any less derivative of the past than traditionalism. The idea is basically the same as the boxes that Meis built 50 years ago. In both cases, the trick is the basic shape of the building. The only difference between what Gehry does today and what Meis did three generations ago is that now we're building goofy shapes instead of boxy ones. Nothing about the base concept has changed at all. It's equivalent to the difference between doing Georgian ornamented Colonial architecture versus Federalist ornamented Colonial architecture; the details are a little different, but intellectually it's identical.

With all due respect, I also think it's incredibly closed-minded to think that formal buildings with ornament can't be contemporary. This building for example belongs in my first category, but can't be called historicist or non-contemporary by any reasonable definition.

Ironically, if The Fountainhead were written today young Mr. Roark would be a traditionalist, and the dogmatic leaders of the profession would be geometric sculpturalists.

First to say I'm closed minded because I rejected your idea and presented my view on the subject I think is a little off. I would say we have differing opinions not that one is closed minded and one is not. To try to belittle what I said by calling me closed minded is unfortunate. I presented why I thought the way I did but I guess I will have to go into more depth.

Also you obviously only judged the buildings I showed on their outward appearance and even then failed to actually judge them correctly. They are much more than the formal "boxes" that Gerhy creates. Also to lump all of these buildings into the same category of style if thats what you want to call it is an over generalization. The buildings I showed all have different ways of presenting themselves and all are pushing some kind of boundary with how they were created. These range from structurally, programmaticly, spatially, and through the use of new and emerging technologies. This idea of progress and innovation in the work I think is what should be considered contemporary in architecture.

Now if you want to tell me how the other buildings you have shown respond to my argument I would be more than happy to call them contemporary. But otherwise I will stick to my original statement.

[Cirrus]

Of course I'm generalizing. I just lumped architecture into three broad categories, an inherently general declaration. You're generalizing too, even more so actually, by lumping architecture into only two categories (that which "pushes boundaries" and that which doesn't).

We seem to have different definitions of "contemporary". To me, contemporary simply means "of its time". To you, contemporary seems to have a more specific definition that requires it to be ahead of its time in some cutting edge way. We're talking about different things.

[SD_Phil]

So I did juggle with whether it made sense to ask for "American" architecture or not. I guess I might also be wondering whether there are distinctly American trends in architecture or whether it truly is 'international' as MikeR suggested (great pictures btw).

[Jasoncw]

The world and even the US are a big place, and there's a lot of stuff going on and a lot of history which adds up to make some regional variations, but in general it's international.

And I think the greatest regional variation isn't what the contemporary architecture is like, but how much of it is being built.

The vast majority of buildings built in the US are either contractor/developer built, from home plan books, or if legally required, by cheap common denominator architecture firms. So I think the regional difference is how good the clients are, how important the general public thinks design is, and whether or not they're willing to pay for it.

[Cirrus]

Also, I would argue that finding new and interesting ways to provide ornament on formal buildings also qualifies as pushing some kind of boundary. Innovative new ornament through the use of new and emerging technologies counts towards even your definition of contemporary.

When I say it's closed-minded to think that traditional buildings can't be contemporary, that is what I mean.