daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Has architectural modernism failed?
Yes 190 45.13%
No 231 54.87%
Voters: 421. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 3rd, 2011, 06:40 AM   #1
ajs0503
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 10

Has modernism failed?

Edit:

Architecturally speaking... (ie Brutalism, International Style, Bauhaus etc) vs. general neo-classicism (Beaux Arts, Second Empire, Italianate, Palazzo, and the various revivals)

This may also pertain to urban planning and functionality.

Then...





Now...



I'll leave at that...

Last edited by ajs0503; August 4th, 2011 at 10:21 AM.
ajs0503 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 3rd, 2011, 07:44 AM   #2
guy4versa4
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: alor star
Posts: 2,859
Likes (Received): 52

i love modern architecture..
guy4versa4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 07:50 AM   #3
Melb_aviator
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,207
Likes (Received): 432

For me, its a hard question to answer on a general scale , as I see positives in both styles at times, but theres bad examples of both.

That example you gave is a disaster though, given the amazing design of the original and the plain and fairly ordinary building that replaced it. The new building seems to encapsulate the worst parts of modernism.
__________________
"They say you flirt with Sydney, but you marry Melbourne", Mr Choong - SP Setia President (Quoted from AFR 21st July, 2011).

mapece liked this post
Melb_aviator no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 08:29 AM   #4
ajs0503
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melb_aviator View Post
For me, its a hard question to answer on a general scale , as I see positives in both styles at times, but theres bad examples of both.

That example you gave is a disaster though, given the amazing design of the original and the plain and fairly ordinary building that replaced it. The new building seems to encapsulate the worst parts of modernism.
What would you consider to be an example of "bad classicism? Demolished or extant.

I could continue to prove my point by providing more examples of why modernism has failed, but first I would like to know what your interpretation of "bad classicism" is.
ajs0503 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 08:33 AM   #5
guy4versa4
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: alor star
Posts: 2,859
Likes (Received): 52

how bout somthing modern like this?



and classic like this
guy4versa4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 08:35 AM   #6
Skyscraperer
Scraping Skies
 
Skyscraperer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Orchard, Singapore
Posts: 115
Likes (Received): 1

Well, like there are Ugly modern buildings, there are classical uglies too... The first picture's building is amazing, the modern replacement is ugly, but the ones above are amazing!
__________________
The end
Skyscraperer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 08:42 AM   #7
guy4versa4
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: alor star
Posts: 2,859
Likes (Received): 52

yeah..at last its not about the era modern or classic..its about the design,architect..
guy4versa4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 08:47 AM   #8
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,969
Likes (Received): 12195

Has it failed? I don't think so. As admirable as it is to look at old classical style buildings, the building of them in 2012 on a mass scale would be impossible. Plus, modernism found a solution for the nagging old problem of how to build tall towers in an honest fashion; rather than try and stretch up classical designs, it was felt that giving tall towers their own unique modern form was a better approach.... and I agree with that logic.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman

melrocks50 liked this post
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 09:20 AM   #9
Skyscraperer
Scraping Skies
 
Skyscraperer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Orchard, Singapore
Posts: 115
Likes (Received): 1

So why would it be impossible to us?
__________________
The end
Skyscraperer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 09:31 AM   #10
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,969
Likes (Received): 12195

Stone carvers and craftsmen don't exist anymore, or at least not at the scale that would be required, and at the cost of modern day labour and materials like marble, it would cost a king's ransom and take decades to build anything! There are MANY more people in the world now than there were 100-200 years ago, and we have to be realistic about housing them, and providing them workplaces. Turning back the time to the Roman era is not exactly realistic; it would be like replacing photography with oil painters, replacing telephones with telegram boys, and replacing the automobile with horses and buggies. Its best to look at old buildings, sigh and say how lovely they are, and accept that it is simply not practical to try and turn back the clock.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman

alexandru.mircea liked this post
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 10:38 AM   #11
vachej
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 0

Its not so much a question of whether 'modernism' has failed, as whether
architects have failed to understand the problem of integrating modern
materials, correctly inserting into the street the huge monolithic
buildings modern materials make possible. People feel much more
'sense of place' along streets comprised of many individual,
no more than 3 or 4 or 5 story buildings, individual buildings fraught
with attractive ornament. Where modernism has failed is
in establishing this relation on the street. The vast, drab, dull,
monoliths of modern towers alienate, disturb, bring about a
dystopian response. All that need be done to mitigate this
is to surround a modern building with the sort of 3 and 4 story
richly detailed masonry buildings typical of 100 years ago. A simple
topological rule, no modernist tower can ever directly front
the street, solves everything. For a study in contrasts
here are two simple sketches illustrating the idea for
two identical urban squares:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/treehou...7626776152760/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/treehou...7626776152760/
vachej no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 11:08 AM   #12
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by vachej View Post
Its not so much a question of whether 'modernism' has failed, as whether architects have failed to understand the problem of integrating modern materials, correctly inserting into the street the huge monolithic buildings modern materials make possible. People feel much more
'sense of place' along streets comprised of many individual, no more than 3 or 4 or 5 story buildings, individual buildings fraught with attractive ornament. Where modernism has failed is in establishing this relation on the street. The vast, drab, dull, monoliths of modern towers alienate, disturb, bring about a
dystopian response. All that need be done to mitigate this is to surround a modern building with the sort of 3 and 4 story richly detailed masonry buildings typical of 100 years ago. A simple topological rule, no modernist tower can ever directly front the street, solves everything. For a study in contrasts
here are two simple sketches illustrating the idea for two identical urban squares:
This is just a matter of taste, and the proposed solution is patchy and, in my opinion, worse.

Not all places were created to give a "sense of place" for a starter. Since ancient times certain buildings and areas were conceived in monumental scale meant to devoid them of the "sense of place". This is nothing new. The only difference is that modernism catapulted the new engineering possibilities that made monumental-scaled buildings a run-of-the-mill enterprise, not a national epic.

Modernism, as an architectural style, is just out of mainstream fashion, and one of its babies, brutalism, is highly disregard nowadays. I bet in 30/40 years they will be "rehabilitated" as Chicago-style high-rises were back to fame since early 1980s, for instance.

Moreover, modernism construction is not only about high-rises. Low-rise modernist buildings are still fashionable and highly regarded, despite fierce opposition of certain lines of thought.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 11:46 AM   #13
xJamaax
Registered User
 
xJamaax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,969
Likes (Received): 2884

I dont like the so called modernism!IT glorifies European civilization and ignores others to a point of calling them primitive.
xJamaax no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 12:46 PM   #14
Crownsteler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 851
Likes (Received): 474

I generally agree with what Taller, Better and suburbanist wrote (well thats a first). I would like to add however, that the architectural style might have gone out of fashion, some of the core aesthetics never have. The clear simple shapes and the spaciousness and lightness, which are the essence of modern architecture, have never gone out of fashion, and are, I think, quite universal. I mean, how many people decorated theirs homes like this nowadays;

As opposed to something like this;
image hosted on flickr

modern interior by Remodeleze, on Flickr

The greatest failing of modern architecture, imo, is that it is just incredibly difficult to reduce a design to its pure essence, or to quote Pascal; "I am sorry I have had to write you such a long letter, but I did not have time to write you a short one."
The early modern architects were all great architects who not only designed revolutionairy buildings, they could actually do it properly. However, when modernism became fashionable it came at the cost of more mass produced designs, generally quite mediocre. While the earlier architects could hide behind beautiful decorations, modern architects couldn't, making the weakness of their design all the more appearent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajs0503 View Post
What would you consider to be an example of "bad classicism? Demolished or extant.

I could continue to prove my point by providing more examples of why modernism has failed, but first I would like to know what your interpretation of "bad classicism" is.
Just to prove the point;

Palais de Justice de Bruxelles
Crownsteler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 12:49 PM   #15
artoor
Registered User
 
artoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Warszawa/Jabłonna
Posts: 869
Likes (Received): 50

Who would care to visit Paris, Rome, Madrid, London filled with modern architecture
only? The answer is obvious. Modernism has created some iconic buildings but has
failed totally in creating cities. Hongkong, Shanghai or Dubai may look impressive
on photos but look thin in comparison to the world class giants.
What to speak of ordinary cities around the world where modern intrusion
usually spoils the substance. Take modern Prague vs. classic, modern Florence v. classic etc. and see the difference.
artoor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 01:11 PM   #16
Sweet Zombie Jesus
Free Cake
 
Sweet Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 2,819
Likes (Received): 662

It had a lot of failures, particularly for me how the ideology of stripping buildings down to function was itself compromised by the ideology itself... a lot of very functional aspects of building design were rejected by Modernism; pitched roofs and stringcoursing are probably the best ways to have rainwater running quickly off the roof and sides of a building but this was deemed unnecesary in their quest for simplicity. Just don't get me started on the wider urban planning theories...

However it's had more of an effect on our culture than we might think. Many people appreciate 'clean lines' and simple shapes in design. Although the much trumpeted 'machine for living in' never came to pass... people just didn't like the idea much of living in a machine.
__________________
Glasgow
Sweet Zombie Jesus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 01:43 PM   #17
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by artoor View Post
Who would care to visit Paris, Rome, Madrid, London filled with modern architecture only? The answer is obvious. Modernism has created some iconic buildings but has failed totally in creating cities. Hongkong, Shanghai or Dubai may look impressiveon photos but look thin in comparison to the world class giants
You are speaking only of tourism. You are entitled to have an opinion on Paris, Roma, Madrid or London, but you can't assume your value judgment is universal. Especially when it come to aesthetics.

Most people who visit these cities don't care about regular architecture, they care about shopping, sightseeing of specific places (from Eiffel Tower to Vatican to Prado) and other activities. If you wiped out 80% of the built-up area of any of those capitals, preserving the tourist sights only, people would still flow there. But tourist numbers is not all that matters.

Quote:
What to speak of ordinary cities around the world where modern intrusion
usually spoils the substance. Take modern Prague vs. classic, modern Florence v. classic etc. and see the difference.
Again, it is purely a matter of taste. And, in any case, the ancient heritage of Praha is completely different than that of Firenze.

What some people actually don't like is the fact that modernist architecture was the first truly globalized school of architecture. It is not like art-déco "exported" to Miami or Chicago-style "exported" to Sidney. Modernism was born as a global style, detached of any specific "birthplace". Do modernist buildings resounds "French" because of Le Corbusier, for instance? Not at all.

Once again, it is mere a question of preference. Some people are highly annoyed by the "standardization" of food tastes, music, fashion and architecture throughout the World. They are those who will always vocalize against the "building that could exist anywhere and thus is 'characterless'". They will hate modernism because it opened the floodgates for star architects "unconnected" to the cities or regions they built in etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Zombie Jesus View Post
It had a lot of failures, particularly for me how the ideology of stripping buildings down to function was itself compromised by the ideology itself... a lot of very functional aspects of building design were rejected by Modernism; pitched roofs and stringcoursing are probably the best ways to have rainwater running quickly off the roof and sides of a building but this was deemed unnecesary in their quest for simplicity. Just don't get me started on the wider urban planning theories...
There is intelligent and neat modernist building and there are dumb modernist buildings. What happens is that, because cities expanded a lot on 20th Century due to urbanization, most of the regular, unsuitable, crappy old building of previous styles had been demolished or replaced by newer varieties. Indeed, 19th Century had seen a lot of replacement of Baroque and late medieval vernacular buildings torn down and replaced by what was "modern" at the time.

For instance, the celebrated Paris boulevards are all artificial creations on what was an already existing "urban fabric". And everybody loves the result, 150 years later! That is why I think, when none of us will be alive to witness it, areas that were drastically renovated on "urban renewal" schemes will be celebrated and appreciated as "unique" and "distinctive". Then, maybe, some will write about "the destruction of architectural (modernist) gems to be replaced with fake, 120-year-late replicas and parodies of older buildings for the sake of keeping an artificial and shallow "harmony" with the surroundings"


Quote:
However it's had more of an effect on our culture than we might think. Many people appreciate 'clean lines' and simple shapes in design..
This is a direct consequence of mass production. A century before that, mass production of clothes had taken away the allure of very intricate clothing as it were then possible to buy more clothes at much more affordable prices more often. Think of furniture: once, it was built to last decades (many). So it had many details and pricey decorative elements. But must common people didn't even know of wardrobe as a concept. Now, it is easy to manufacture and assemble furniture. ORnaments and garnishments felt out of favor with streamlined designs and so. Bear in mind, though, that mockery of excessive flair and decoration is nothing new: rococo painters already mocked it on their art productions.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 03:30 PM   #18
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8163

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post
Has it failed? I don't think so. As admirable as it is to look at old classical style buildings, the building of them in 2012 on a mass scale would be impossible. Plus, modernism found a solution for the nagging old problem of how to build tall towers in an honest fashion; rather than try and stretch up classical designs, it was felt that giving tall towers their own unique modern form was a better approach.... and I agree with that logic.
The problem with modernism is that it cant do attractive streetscapes (I can only think of two exceptions - Java Island in Amsterdam and Hafencity in Hamburg), although it does fantastic individual, "standalone" buildings.

However if we are talking strictly modernism (ie van der Rohe, form follows function), then I must say Im not a huge fan of it, I much prefer deconstructivism as it is the more appropriate style for the 21st century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xJamaax View Post
I dont like the so called modernism!IT glorifies European civilization and ignores others to a point of calling them primitive.
Yeah but then again youre just a nationalist nut.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius

Last edited by El_Greco; August 3rd, 2011 at 03:41 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 03:34 PM   #19
Sweet Zombie Jesus
Free Cake
 
Sweet Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 2,819
Likes (Received): 662

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
There is intelligent and neat modernist building and there are dumb modernist buildings. What happens is that, because cities expanded a lot on 20th Century due to urbanization, most of the regular, unsuitable, crappy old building of previous styles had been demolished or replaced by newer varieties. Indeed, 19th Century had seen a lot of replacement of Baroque and late medieval vernacular buildings torn down and replaced by what was "modern" at the time.

For instance, the celebrated Paris boulevards are all artificial creations on what was an already existing "urban fabric". And everybody loves the result, 150 years later! That is why I think, when none of us will be alive to witness it, areas that were drastically renovated on "urban renewal" schemes will be celebrated and appreciated as "unique" and "distinctive". Then, maybe, some will write about "the destruction of architectural (modernist) gems to be replaced with fake, 120-year-late replicas and parodies of older buildings for the sake of keeping an artificial and shallow "harmony" with the surroundings"
The success of central Paris is due to the harmonious architectural form and street life it creates. If any part of a city is to be demolished it should be replaced by something better. That happened in many 19th century cities, but when it was the Modernists turn, they demolished a lot of perfectly good, working buildings, and replaced them with garbage... not in terms of Modernist style, but in the sense that many simply worked badly. Housing made of prefabicated concrete sections is particularly bad in this country, as in the cold wet winters damp and cold seep through the thin walls and cause illness for the inhabitants. Certain architects and critics are already lamenting the death of some Modernist 'classics', but ordinary people in my own city are still queuing up to be moved into either 19th/early 20th century buildings or comtemporary houses/flats which although are largely unharmonious or even ugly, are at least warm, dry, spacious and liveable.
__________________
Glasgow
Sweet Zombie Jesus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2011, 03:40 PM   #20
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8163

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Zombie Jesus View Post
Housing made of prefabicated concrete sections is particularly bad in this country
Is that the fault of modernism though? Often architects were not even involved in the design process of public housing, it was responsibility of local planners and the like. However the modernist icons are still very much popular - Unité d'Habitation in Marseille is mainly occupied by upper-middle class people, Park Hill in Sheffield is undergoing a redevelopment, while Trellick Tower and the Barbican Estate in London are some of the most sought after locations in the city.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
architecture

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu