Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
You know that urban renewal wasn't about architectural style primarily. Come on. The areas "renewed" had been neglected for decades, due to the depression, WWII, the GI Bill, etc., which fed into a perception (and some reality) that they weren't as clean or functional as building new. They mixed uses, which was verboten to many urbanists. They often lacked elevators. Sometimes housing units were small, as were offices. Many buildings were called firetraps. All of this was used by urban renewal proponents to justify their campaigns.
|
Uhh and what do you think people are saying about brutalism right now? "The floorplans are outdated", "The interiors are dated", "they have been neglected for decades", "They aren't as functional as building new", "They don't comply to ADA standards", "They don't have modern sprinkler and alarm systems", etc. Same criticism, same mistake.
Quote:
As for brutalism not being torn down yet....surely you realize that these buildings are much newer? (Even so, when my city has school renovation bond issues, they're clear that the program is to tear renovate the old stuff, and tear down and replace the mid-century stuff...we get 70% yeses.)
|
Uhhh no it's not newer. Most of the stuff built in the glory days of our cities was built around 1900, that was the center of the boom. Therefore it was, on average, 50 years old when the wholesale demolition began. How long ago did they start building Brutalism? 45 years ago? Looks like we are almost at the prime "tear it down for stupid reasons" years.
Quote:
Regarding what's popular, you seem to think that what gets built equals what's popular. That's odd. Even in the AIA's own well-known national survey of the general public a few years ago, nothing recently built was as popular as the pre-war buildings they showed. This illustrated to the architectural community better than ever before that there's a disconnect between what the public likes and what they've been designing.
|
That's because historic structures came back into style. Styles change. As someone who actually works on the sales side of the industry I can tell you that you are completely wrong about what is being built not being representative of what people like. The fact is we CAN'T build buildings like we used to, so building historical structures is not an option. It's a false dilemma to suggest it is. Therefore what get's built is what is most popular right now that we can build right now. I deal with clients all day long on many projects and they all have a say in what their project looks like. This isn't architects dictating to the client, this is clients saying "I like what you are proposing" or "I don't like it". Architectural trends are in fact predicated off of popular opinion no matter how many people like to claim they aren't.
Anyone who believes that architectural trends are not determined by popular opinion is completely disconnected with reality. Not that they are insane, but that they clearly haven't seen how the process of building an new building works. I see it every day and I'll tell you that clients generally dictate what style their project will have. They hire architects that they like and they have input into how the project will look.