Roger Ebert calls modern architecture "totalitarian"

[Cirrus]

i see modern architecture as a mirror on the human mind and personality and emotions,a mis-shapen,misunderstood and abstract part of human beings that is rarely explored.

I see it as a big problem that modern architecture focuses so much on abstract explorations mirroring the mind and personality and emotions, and so little on producing attractive functional buildings that people actually like.

Architecture isn't sculpture. It isn't abstract. We literally have to live in it.

And Cirrus, you're an intelligent guy, but that defense of ornament feels tautological. "Ornament is necessary, so when modern architects don't give it to us they're "lazy" or there's some kind of post-modern denial of expectation happening?"

I didn't offer much of a defense of why I think ornament is necessary. We can have that conversation, but I skipped it in that post to make an attack.

I was attacking architects who deny traditionalism by insisting on producing architecture "of its time", but by defining architecture "of its time" as following a 102 year old dogma. I was attacking architects who think that boxing themselves in to the rules of 20th Century modernism makes them free thinkers.

I am calling the architectural establishment a bunch of hypocrites who aren't following their own rhetoric. I am saying that the establishment is so uptight with obsolete 20th Century dogma that it has forgotten how to actually produce creative and functional 21st Century buildings. I am saying that architecture has become uncompromisingly conservative in regards to modernism. I am saying that if The Fountainhead took place today, the groupthink establishment would be demanding that Howard Roark build modernist glass buildings without ornament.

OK, I may be ranting.

I am just sick of the damn hypocrisy in architecture.

If you'd like to know why I think ornament is necessary, by all means we can talk about that.

It's also true, as pointed out by Malcolm Gladwell, that when asked, most people will say they prefer a rich, bold, dark roast coffee, when most of them actually prefer a weak, sweet coffee.

Let's test this analogy. When purchasing homes, do most people prefer traditional or modernist designs?

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I see it as a big problem that modern architecture focuses so much on abstract explorations mirroring the mind and personality and emotions, and so little on producing attractive functional buildings that people actually like.

Architecture isn't sculpture. It isn't abstract. We literally have to live in it.

I didn't offer much of a defense of why I think ornament is necessary. We can have that conversation, but I skipped it in that post to make an attack.

I was attacking architects who deny traditionalism by insisting on producing architecture "of its time", but by defining architecture "of its time" as following a 102 year old dogma. I was attacking architects who think that boxing themselves in to the rules of 20th Century modernism makes them free thinkers.

I am calling the architectural establishment a bunch of hypocrits who aren't following their own rhetoric. I am saying that the establishment is so up tight with its own dogma that it has forgotten how to actually produce creative and functional results.

I am saying that architecture has become uncompromisingly conservative in regards to modernism. I am saying that if The Fountainhead took place today, the groupthink establishment would be demanding that Howard Roark build modernist glass buildings without ornament.

OK, I may be ranting.

I am just sick of the damn hypocricy in architecture.

If you'd like to know why I think ornament is necessary, by all means we can talk about that.

Let's test this analogy. When purchasing homes, do most people prefer traditional or modernist designs?

well true though not all designs are on the same unscaled proportions as Guggenheim. look at the NY times building modernistic though built to the human scale. not all modernistic designs are blind to human scale actually most arnt. though i will argue that it is important for architecture to go through such trends to learn from mistakes and build ontop of achievements in the future.and architecture is sculpture and its really the story of us. when were gone they will be the only things to represent who we truly were. and exploration in the human emotion and personality is equally as important as the old exploration of human form and proportion. and as for your ideal home question id go with a modern condo over a Victorian home.

[volguus zildrohar]

Cirrus, I also believe in ornamentation. The definition can be fluid - I don't think every building needs reliefs and gargoyles, per se - but there has to be some intentional flourish, some touch of art, of grace, of human connection. A few budget-friendly window notches or a spire doesn't do it. That's a cheap out. Ornamentation doesn't have to be expensive, it doesn't have to throw off the program of a development. It does have to be considered and executed with care. To lose that is to essentially turn the craft of architecture into glorified Legos.

Speaking on highrise buildings, SkyscrapersOfNewYork mentioned the NYT Tower - a building I'm not particularly fond of. To me, it looks like an adorned update of the neutral colored rectangles that rose in cities across the country 40-50 years ago - it, ironically, looks like a great stack of newspapers but it has aesthetic merit. Without its ceramic screen it would feel like an actually overwhelming building - Comcast Center. Having lived with the building for two years now, I can firmly say that the building - though not completely charmless - is cheaped out. The Inquirer's architecture critic said the building resembled "a giant thumbdrive" shortly after it opened and there's something to that. I think the building doesn't do something that other skyscrapers in Center City that rose before do - add new elements to the sky. Other building add distinctive shapes, colors, features to the Philadelphia skyline - Comcast Center almost feels like the guy wearing a shiny shirt at the bar. It isn't as well considered as even previous versions of itself, almost all of which would've introduced a unique element.

Perhaps it's a symptom of our culture - We generally don't demand much substance, just style and that's what a lot of modern buildings give us but even then it does not seem to be measured, considered style - just flash.

[vid]

I thought totalitarian architecture typically took its cues from Classical architecture?

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

well as ive said architecture is us,a mirror to who human beings actually are materialized in the form of concrete,steel and glass. maybe at the moment we are no more than a cheap,classless,style driven society that demands no substance and that is being reflected in our buildings.though id like to believe that were just exploring a different side of humanity through todays architecture and the cheapout buildings are not reaching true potential simply do to a companies obsession with cutting cost.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Let's test this analogy. When purchasing homes, do most people prefer traditional or modernist designs?

The ugly classical-wannabe one with the 2 car garage.

Seriously though i think that there's enough for everyone at this point and we've passed a time with "classical" designs. Modern designs can have as much human-connection as classical buildings and there are several architects who do it well and others who fuck everything up with their bullshit ideas.

Besides, there are many people who like modern, lifeless, sleek buildings so why not create something awesome (ex. Seattle Public Library) that's modern for them too. And modern buildings may not connect scale-wise with humans but their organic shapes do (ex turning torso, aqua, absolute world). I feel the same way abut expansive glass facades. They can be sleek and modern and have human scale or at least some sort of connection (Bishopgate, Shard, Commerzbank) even without "ornamentation" (which imo can be the simple pattern of the glass panels or metal tubes).

And there are as many (or more actually), buildings with human-scaled features such as windows and 'classical' features which will never do as good as some of these modern designs (Dubai, China, Argentina, and many more countries/places).

Aabout the house i think modern would be my choice. i like classical structures, but human scale in my opinion is having an open floor-plan to interact with people (such as myself) with human-scale materials (wood, concrete, or whatever floats your boat). There's also the convenience of many modern-home energy saving and general features. And if I pick living in a classical building (which i would over a modern glassy building), i'll be damn sure to make many modern interior designs that fit me, and connect with me, while keeping many classical features of the building incorporated as well.

[kznyc2k]

Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar

Without its ceramic screen it would feel like an actually overwhelming building - Comcast Center. Having lived with the building for two years now, I can firmly say that the building - though not completely charmless - is cheaped out. The Inquirer's architecture critic said the building resembled "a giant thumbdrive" shortly after it opened and there's something to that. I think the building doesn't do something that other skyscrapers in Center City that rose before do - add new elements to the sky. Other building add distinctive shapes, colors, features to the Philadelphia skyline - Comcast Center almost feels like the guy wearing a shiny shirt at the bar. It isn't as well considered as even previous versions of itself, almost all of which would've introduced a unique element.

Not to get off-topic, but that's exactly how I feel towards the CC, and I've felt that way since they got rid of the horizontal stone bands in what, 2005? Philly's circa 1990 towers have an unusual amount of detail and proportioning to them which made for a spectacular skyline, and the CC waddling in as a scaleless, all-glass object is much too crude for them. Call it Philly Blunt.

[volguus zildrohar]

You're right, kznyc. The 90's Trophy Towers were Philadelphia's first large scale foray into tall, postwar skyscrapers and since the concept was new to the city we were given some novel forms - The Bell Atlantic Tower being my favorite, riffing off of the city's straight edged, brick forms but taking it to the elevated extreme.

Comcast Center is just lacking and I feel it was the program that did it. Earlier versions called for more floors, different building materials (such as the same golden limestone that the Philadelphia Museum of Art is composed of - which would have been breathtaking) and different proportions. Such a short amount of time passed between the proposal of the previous version and the final design that stands today that something, somewhere, had to be rushed and it sems we're left with a less thought out building, which is sad. The technical aspects are all there and the interiors are well regarded but most people won't interact with that and what meets the public eye is so...unfulfilling.

[tpk-nyc]

The irony in his examples is that Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was inspired by Gothic architecture when he designed the Seagram Building .

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Monotony is by definition both ugly and anti-urban. Good urban buildings should have human scaled details to look at. I don't care whether they're historic or contemporary in style or material, I just want some freaking details on my buildings. I want ornament, and I have no patience for any architect too stupid or lazy to figure out a way to incorporate ornament "of its time" in his or her building. "Contemporary" does not not not mean "bare". If you're too dogmatic in your modernism to figure out how to make a contemporary building interesting, then you're a bad architect, and you invalidate any nonsense claims you might make about creativity. Want to be a creative architect? Concerned about designing something of its time? Then for God's sake, find a new way to provide the ornament that is programmatically necessary for large urban buildings; don't follow 60 years of dogma and pretend it doesn't exist in order to build the same glass box that 10,000 others have built before you. And if you do follow 60 years of dogma, don't pretend doing so was any great creative or intellectual leap, or anything other than tribal laziness.

I agree to a point, but it’s not necessarily about ornamentation. It’s about tried and tested urban design principles and designing buildings to be pedestrian friendly. Long, unbroken expanses of glass at street level are rarely pedestrian friendly. Pedestrians need small scale urban fabric, which is possible to provide on large buildings. They need the scenery to change constantly to make walking down a street interesting. Architects of old buildings understood that – they designed their buildings with narrow storefronts, vertical design elements to break up large facades, recessed entrances, etc. It’s completely possible for modern style architecture to have all those design features with minimal ornamentation. But it’s amazing how many architects, urban designers and planners get it wrong, especially at street level.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I see it as a big problem that modern architecture focuses so much on abstract explorations mirroring the mind and personality and emotions, and so little on producing attractive functional buildings that people actually like.

Architecture isn't sculpture. It isn't abstract. We literally have to live in it.

This is a pet peeve of mine as well. Abstract exploration is fine and all but only if it produces something that gets all the "nuts and bolts" right. It's a building, not a painting on a wall.

[ChicagoChicago]

So a film critic doesn't like modern art?

Well, Jason Brown, a waiter in Tampa does. So that should cancel him out.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

This is a pet peeve of mine as well. Abstract exploration is fine and all but only if it produces something that gets all the "nuts and bolts" right. It's a building, not a painting on a wall.

well ill agree that a building must be on the human scale on its interior though its exterior can be just as abstract and intriguing as a paintings.

[Cirrus]

I also believe in ornamentation. The definition can be fluid - I don't think every building needs reliefs and gargoyles, per se

I agree 100%, which is why I say that architects who deny ornament because they want to produce contemporary buildings are being lazy. Ornament can be contemporary. It doesn't have to be classical. The division between "old" and "bare" is a false dilemma.

I agree to a point, but it’s not necessarily about ornamentation. It’s about tried and tested urban design principles and designing buildings to be pedestrian friendly. Long, unbroken expanses of glass at street level are rarely pedestrian friendly. Pedestrians need small scale urban fabric, which is possible to provide on large buildings. They need the scenery to change constantly to make walking down a street interesting. Architects of old buildings understood that – they designed their buildings with narrow storefronts, vertical design elements to break up large facades, recessed entrances, etc. It’s completely possible for modern style architecture to have all those design features with minimal ornamentation. But it’s amazing how many architects, urban designers and planners get it wrong, especially at street level.

Good point, and I agree. The real goal is simply a diverse streetscape with lots to look at. Ornament is merely one means to accomplish that.

well ill agree that a building must be on the human scale on its interior though its exterior can be just as abstract and intriguing as a paintings.

This statement is inherently anti-urban. It denies the fact that humans spend time outdoors, between buildings. The sidewalk should be thought of as a "room" just like any other, except it lacks a roof. Any architect who would deny that the sidewalk is an important space with important programmatic needs is a bad architect - or at best one who never works in the city and produces exclusively suburban buildings.

So a film critic doesn't like modern art?

Architecture is not art because we have to live in architecture. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is much more than just art.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

This statement is inherently anti-urban. It denies the fact that humans spend time outdoors, between buildings. The sidewalk should be thought of as a "room" just like any other, except it lacks a roof. Any architect who would deny that the sidewalk is an important space with important programmatic needs is a bad architect - or at best one who never works in the city and produces exclusively suburban buildings.

Architecture is not art because we have to live in architecture. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is much more than just art.

i disagree, a sidewalk should be built to human scale though whats wrong with the building that sits on that street being abstract? Architecture is art materialized we build it to fit us though i havnt come across any structure that human beings are completely disconnect from and have no way to relate to it on a human scale.

[DJM19]

It is hit or miss. You cant say all modern architecture is bad, but there are many glaring examples where the building is completely disconnected from the sidewalk and human interaction, and is just plain poor design.

I think thats where people find the ego trips, when a building becomes only about the building regardless of setting or function with the public.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by DJM19

It is hit or miss. You cant say all modern architecture is bad, but there are many glaring examples where the building is completely disconnected from the sidewalk and human interaction, and is just plain poor design.

I think thats where people find the ego trips, when a building becomes only about the building regardless of setting or function with the public.

im gonna say that these structures are far more disconnected than

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...w=1680&bih=818
these

http://www.nikiomahe.com/architectur...-by-morphosis/

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

i disagree, a sidewalk should be built to human scale though whats wrong with the building that sits on that street being abstract? Architecture is art materialized we build it to fit us though i havnt come across any structure that human beings are completely disconnect from and have no way to relate to it on a human scale.

There's nothing wrong with a building next to a sidewalk being abstract. But it should still have good urban design and provide a stimulating pedestrian experience.

But I agree with Cirrus; art is part of architecture, but there's a lot more to architecture than art. Buildings affect their surroundings and the general public on a far more fundamental level than paintings and sculptures. Come to think of it, issues like how a building affects surrounding streets and buildings, how passing pedestrians interacts with the building, and how to incorporate functional concerns like heating and lighting are an an art in itself. An architect who doesn't consider these things is not only a bad architect, but a bad artist.

[Cirrus]

whats wrong with the building that sits on that street being abstract?

Nothing, so far as its abstraction is secondary to the programmatic needs of the sidewalk, just like its abstraction must be secondary to the programmatic needs of the interior spaces.

However, the programmatic needs of the sidewalk include frequent things to look at (ie human scaled details, or ornament), which architects hoping to build an abstract sculpture writ large are often not willing to provide.

Furthermore, your statement begs the question: Why should a building need to be abstract? The answer is that it doesn't. If you can't provide an abstract building without first providing for the programmatic needs of the site (including interior and exterior needs), then building an abstract building is not a luxury available, and you should not do so. Abstract buildings can be lovely, but they are not appropriate for most urban locations. You wouldn't build the Sydney Opera House in the middle of a block of commercial buildings.

When your specific site program calls for a building that doubles as sculpture, that's when abstract architecture really shines. The Sydney Opera House is more famous as a piece of sculpture than it ever will be for any opera that goes on inside, and that's OK. But such buildings are extremely rare, and egotistical architects who try to shoe-horn them in where they don't belong are doing wrong.

I think that sculptural modernism can be really excellent, in the right context, for monumental buildings. However, it fails as a way to build the thousands of everyday buildings that must surround any given monument.

[jetsetter]

Seriously though i think that there's enough for everyone at this point and we've passed a time with "classical" designs.

We will never pass a time when classical designs can not be built. A building designed using classical elements is just as relevant today as 150 years ago.

Ornament can be contemporary. It doesn't have to be classical. The division between "old" and "bare" is a false dilemma.

I agree however personally I prefer the classical.

[texcolo]

eh... for every CalTrans Building there's a Salt Lake City Public Library.


http://blog.aia.org/favorites/2007/0...lic_libra.html

You can't judge an era or style of architecture by just one building.