Re-reading Kunstler

[mhays]

Originally Posted by CGII

Precisely. Just because you have an opinion (and a concernedly strong one, did an architect touch you as a child?) does not mean the rest of the world shares it.

As a professional architect, my experience has taught me that people are more concerned about status and expensive materials than style, or more that expensive stuff decides what style somebody likes. From what I've handled, class issues decide what people like and those veins run far beyond the differences between described 'modernism' and 'not modernism.'

So please, spare us your manufactured outrage, we architects hate ourselves enough, thank you.

"People" are apparently mostly interested in classic styles, though generally poorly done. That's most of what they buy.

Those who spend heavily, i.e. are more likely to hire architects, probably differ on average. Particularly people who hire certain architects.

[JManc]

Any good books out there dealing with the future of urban development and design? I'm not an architect or planner but I am a futurist with a keen interest in this particular topic.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by mhays

"People" are apparently mostly interested in classic styles, though generally poorly done. That's most of what they buy.

Those who spend heavily, i.e. are more likely to hire architects, probably differ on average. Particularly people who hire certain architects.

Big claims require big evidence.

[mhays]

Fly over a city. Or look at what sells. Modern designs are a small fraction of the houses that get built.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that your anecdotal point of view is evidence?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by mhays

Fly over a city. Or look at what sells. Modern designs are a small fraction of the houses that get built.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that your anecdotal point of view is evidence?

I'm not suggesting an anecdotal point of view; I'm suggesting the opposite. There is no evidence to support any of the claims being made here. There has never been solid research conducted on architectural stylistic popularity. It's not even possible to produce such a report; for example, how would a researcher compensate for renters? Do multi-family buildings count as one 'buyer' or as one 'built?' How does one account for people who purchase a style they don't like out of need? How does one factor population density vs. stylistic popularity? And there are even more critical questions one needs to ask, like where do ranch houses fall? Are they modern or 'not-modern?' Are we accounting for different building types? I can guarantee you that for the factory/warehouse building type modernism slays non-modernism. As it does in commercial and agricultural uses. Most high density construction is 'modern' and to be honest I think the only category in which 'non-modern' has a chance is in the single unit residential category. But would one have to weigh all of these things differently in order to construct such a conclusion?

It's absurd to claim people detest modernism because you 'flew over a city' and presumably saw some 'non-modern' buildings. Anecdotally, 'modern' buildings are built in probably as high volume (if not higher) as 'non-modern' buildings. But there is no research that tells us anything. Nobody has a claim in this. But for the record, my anecdotal experiences as an architect trump your plane ride.

I live in a building constructed in 1906 and would probably be considered by many to be a 'modern' architect, so does that make me a fraud or a victim of circumstance? Does it mean I am a supporter of 'modernism' or 'not-modernism?' Or is it neither on account of the fact that this ARCHI-WAR is completely antithetical to the problems at hand? In 2012, the only architects who insist there is a culture war of architectural styles are tract home developers and embittered conservative upper class suburban planners (read, representatives of the 'non-modern' class). None of this 'style' bullshit matters if the cities we live in suck.

[mhays]

I didn't claim people detested modern buildings. I just said most houses aren't modern.

Without digging into that much, I mean most new houses have peaked roofs, windows above knee height, etc.

I vaguely recall someone reporting once that modern designs were something like 10% of the market. That sound about right.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by mhays

I didn't claim people detested modern buildings. I just said most houses aren't modern.

Without digging into that much, I mean most new houses have peaked roofs, windows above knee height, etc.

I vaguely recall someone reporting once that modern designs were something like 10% of the market. That sound about right.

I am only responding to the incredibly negative sentiment displayed in this thread towards 'modernism' and the insistence that a)traditional architecture outsells modern architecture and b)traditional architecture is therefore superior. There are so many analytical flaws happening that are touting factual output I can't begin. Does a house with a peaked roof and punch windows really automatically qualify it as traditional? And even if 'modern' designs accounted for 10% of the market for single family houses, does that mean anything in the large scheme of things? Apartment buildings, office buildings, malls, skyscrapers, factories, warehouses, dormitories, etc....

[mhays]

Houses are bought with "heart" playing a major role. Office buildings are mostly based on economics, building systems, etc.

[JManc]

Experimental/ modern home designs are typical reserved for the well-to-do, not the average home owner...the overwhelming majority.

[ardecila]

The massive ranch developments of the 1950s and 60s were arguably quite modern. The rigid styles put forth by Mies and Corbusier had to be altered to accommodate suburbanization, because flat roofs are a maintenance problem for the average homeowner and cast-in-place concrete construction is too labor-intensive for mass production. Ergo, we got ranch homes, typically wood framed with sloping roofs, yet still displaying new/fast/efficient methods of construction, large expanses of glass, attention paid to natural light, and open floor plans with flowing spaces (including outdoor decks and patios).

Quantifying the cultural shifts that led Americans to reject this vision of modernity and embrace the post-modern atmosphere of today is not something I'm qualified to do... better question for a sociologist or historian. IIRC, this question has been answered to death in various ways, usually involving the term "disillusionment" - as if faith in modernity and human progress were some kind of wool pulled over our eyes.

My point is, there's nothing ingrained in Americans that points us towards traditional design over modern design. I do think most Americans are attracted to economy and simplicity, which unfortunately often turns into an excuse to be cheap and sloppy.

[vid]

Most houses aren't modern because that isn't what people generally expect houses to look like. Most people in Canada and the US, regardless of where they live, have a basic idea of what a house is, and it looks like the houses we built 100 years ago. It's not that we don't expect or appreciate modern houses; they're simply not the first look that comes to mind when someone says "house".

The idea of what an office building or hospital looks like is much more fluid. Schools typically have the same basic design, most modern schools I've seen have the same general massing as older schools but with a post-modern skin.

[subterranean]

This thread is great. I know Kunstler is cuckoo, but I still love him for what he is: an incredibly intelligent, belligerently jaded great uncle. I email him from time to time to get his thoughts. This was one of our interactions. My email is first, his response is second.

I recently watched "The Colony" on Netflix, a Discovery show about a group of folks trying to survive after the collapse of society. On the show they create a wood gas generator, something I had never heard of before. I searched around the web for the topic and found this video, which made me think of you and your books. No long term solution for sure, but I found it interesting:

• Video Link


Best

His response:

I dunno B----.
Looks to me like just more techno-narcissism.
Anything to keep the engines running.

[Cirrus]

has New Urbanism created substantial, dense new town centers anywhere outside the DC area?

Kendall, Florida

[CGII]

Originally Posted by mhays

Houses are bought with "heart" playing a major role. Office buildings are mostly based on economics, building systems, etc.

Originally Posted by jmancuso

Experimental/ modern home designs are typical reserved for the well-to-do, not the average home owner...the overwhelming majority.
Today 12:03 AM

So the 'modern' type is simultaneously heartlessly inexpensive and prohibitively expensive?

Personally I am unconvinced that the cost of building a 'modern' styled building is any more or less than a 'non-modern' one.


aia.org


rackcdn.com


propimages.com

[mhays]

Not sure what you mean by putting a few anecdotal images out there.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not sure what you mean by putting a few anecdotal images out there.

I am showing low cost buildings that are in similar styles to buildings everybody sees everywhere in order to illustrate the point that 'modern' buildings are not any more or less expensive or uncommon that 'non-modern' ones.

The first image is a prototype urban infill prototype house.

The second image is a low income housing estate on an anemic budget.

The third image is a standard developer project of low cost apartments.

None of these are especially unique, expensive, or traditionally styled, and we are all probably familiar with these housing types and somehow forgetting that they exist.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by CGII

So the 'modern' type is simultaneously heartlessly inexpensive and prohibitively expensive?

Personally I am unconvinced that the cost of building a 'modern' styled building is any more or less than a 'non-modern' one.


aia.org


rackcdn.com


propimages.com

Here in Houston, there is no way that single-family home could be had for less than half a million. Neighborhoods that are more affordable (less than $300K) often have deed restriction forbidding a radical variation in architectural styles which means that house will be expensive infill closer in town.

Apartments are not comparable to single family homes. Like an office building, developers use the latest design trends to woo tenants. They are commercial buildings.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by JManc

Here in Houston, there is no way that single-family home could be had for less than half a million. Neighborhoods that are more affordable (less than $300K) often have deed restriction forbidding a radical variation in architectural styles which means that house will be expensive infill closer in town.

The heavy use of covenants doesn't seem to be very common in the North, where there are vast swaths of city and inner suburbia that predate the idea entirely.

Besides, we're talking about speculative developments anyway, not custom homes. A custom home would be exactly what the owner wants, while a developer planning a new subdivision is free to build in whatever style he chooses so long as he thinks it can sell.

However, as I mentioned earlier, flat roofs are generally inadvisable for single-family homes because of maintenance reasons.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by subterranean

This thread is great. I know Kunstler is cuckoo, but I still love him for what he is: an incredibly intelligent, belligerently jaded great uncle.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by JManc

Apartments are not comparable to single family homes. Like an office building, developers use the latest design trends to woo tenants. They are commercial buildings.

Do you believe that subdivisions of single family homes are developed any differently? They too are commercial enterprises, and custom built units represent a tiny fraction of total construction.