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 February 6th, 2015, 05:53 PM   #601
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,167
Likes (Received): 57845

^ Could someone please delete these crap posts?
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 7th, 2015, 10:05 AM   #602
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,479

But he makes some good points
__________________

BriedisUnIzlietne, Roman_P liked this post
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2015, 06:25 AM   #603
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Those are the two fundamental interpretations I would say that explore both the bright and the dark side of modernism. I would say that consumerism fits comfortably into the first theory I presented. It is part of it.



Yes, but they were both modernizers of society. They wanted to remodel the very essence of humanity, including cities.
You are talking High Modernism. That is not the same thing as modern architecture. I'll ramble on a bit here because this is, in fact, one of the reasons I did not go to architecture school.

We, as humans, tend to categorize things. We do that especially with styles and philosophies. Even worse, we tend to think in static terms, so we can't really grasp variances and changes easily so tend to use blanket definitions and judgements. Modernism is a great example of that.

There were some people who called themselves Modernists. There were also many, many more who did not, or even openly rebelled against the term. They still get lumped into the modernist fold, however, when looking back in time. We mistakenly apply theories and intentions to work that the designer never had.

modernism (I use the lower case here to refer to a more general description) is a fundamental change in thinking. It is importantly not a style on its own, though led to many styles. In an architectural sense, modernism really reflects a way of thinking about buildings where the building was designed around functional and esthetic needs. It was a top down design, as opposed to the more traditional way of designing, which was essentially a kit of parts that one would use to assemble replica structures. In that sense modernism was more about individuality but relationship to the environment. However, how different movements during the modernist times did that varied.

Modernism (with a capital) was one specific philosophy (NOT a style!!!) that came about. Modernism promoted an outright rebellion against tradition. It is important to note, however, that this only reflected one group of people. However, those people tried to essentially take over general modernism, and tried to apply their specific doctrine to anyone who fell in that period.

Here's where the challenge comes in to play. On one hand you have a whole large group of people more or less doing their own thing, but being inspired by, and in return inspiring others. On the other hand, you have a group which has a very definite doctrine, and wants to impose that over all. Then you have an academic community (in this case both educational as well as critical) which is trying to pigeonhole everyone and set precise definitions to what is otherwise an unrelated body of work. So now you have designers associated with certain styles that they never agreed with. To top it off, you have now set a stage for a reactionary group of designers and critics trying to rebel against certain designers and styles not because of the specific work, but because of an objection to the philosophies that the original designer never intended or had.

In this case, you are applying a certain doctrine to design styles that never related. Even worse, you are lumping all styles outside of modernism under another simple umbrella. Many of those styles where seen as just as disruptive and just as distasteful as you are currently looking at modernism as. Because we can see all of historic styles in one group, and are completely familiar with them, and have had time to cull and tweak them to be the perfect collection, they have become comfortable to us. If we were to take away any and all knowledge and impression of modern design, we would look at those other design styles as a cacophony of overdone and conflicting details simply because we are applying a different spectrum.

Oh, Modernism as the specific philosophical doctrine is dead. However, Modern Design is still very much happening. Even those replicated traditional buildings are still now designed in a modern fashion, figuring out the space layout and needs first, and then applying a decoration to them. Form follows function is, of course, always cited as the manifesto of modern design. However that phrase has become a bit twisted to imply that modernism means a lack of details and ornament. Louis Sullivan certainly never subscribed to the idea that modern design was the elimination of all decoration or design.
__________________

Suburbanist liked this post
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2015, 07:25 AM   #604
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,479

Even Mies who said "Less is More" used lots of decoration in his buildings. He has many useless, decorative I-beams on his facades to give an elegant verticality and to emphasize beauty through pattern and space rather than statues and intricate carvings. His Barcelona Pavilion uses a stone with a very beautiful pattern and colour to create contrast to the white spaces, creating more beauty with less materials. Proportion was also very important to him, as well as eliminating all clutter such as making sure the blinds in his office buildings only stopped at certain points to avoid looking messy from the outside.

Even architects who design in pure minimalism, like Tadao Ando, have many details in their buildings such as light, space and darkness, and relation to nature.
Of course both Mies and Tadao used high quality materials.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2015, 07:29 AM   #605
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Wow that was a bunch of babble I just posted. Let me try and break it down into something more organized.
  • Modernism is a misused term. Different groups of people use the same term to refer to different things. Worse, confusion grows because sometimes the term is sued in reference to a design style, and sometimes to philosophical ideas, and even sometimes as a reference of time.
  • There was a Modernist movement. This was a philosophy with defined tenets, NOT a design style! However, this philosophy did inspire some designers and design played a part in the movement. I will refer to this as High Modernism
  • High Modernists tended to be rebellious. It also tended to take an “us or them” attitude towards traditional philosophies.
  • Modernism also is used in a more general sense, to address a change in the way people thought, not only about design, but also everyday life. It can be summed up as “form follows function” (actually misquoted, it reads “form ever follows function”). In design in reflects a change from bottom up – essentially taking a “kit” of design parts and assembling them in predefined forms, and fitting things into that structure, to laying out what functions are needed and designing the building and style around that.
  • Modernism in this general sense spawned many different design styles, all with different philosophies and many not anywhere close to High Modernism thinking.
  • There is a group of academically minded people (not just teachers, but critics and historians too) which try to group designers and works into specific categorical styles and “schools”, which the designers never associated themselves with.
  • Many people, especially academics, have redefined (shades of 1984) “form follows function” to mean that modernism seeks to alienate itself from decoration and style, particularly references to the past.
  • These academics also tend to try and merge philosophical doctrines with design styles when in fact there are only casual connections between the two. This has led to not only a lot of misunderstanding about styles, but also a lot of negative connotations, which should not be made.
  • The attempt to associate High Modernism with most modern design styles has led to a reactionary attempt to associate any non-modern styles together as well. Had we not had Modernism as this totally different collection of styles to compare them to, we would not tend to think of them as harmonious as we do.
  • Because we have lived with traditional styles for all of our lives, and have all been familiarized with the “language” of traditional design, we fell comfortable with it. It has become a part of the background fabric – everyone more or less agrees on what is “good” versus “bad” design. We have managed to cull and curate a collection of prime examples of good design.
  • Modernism has not been around long enough to have this benefit. Only now are a few styles becoming part of our collective memory and give us those worm fuzzy feelings. Most styles are still jarring to us.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2015, 01:52 PM   #606
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,348
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
You are talking High Modernism. That is not the same thing as modern architecture. I'll ramble on a bit here because this is, in fact, one of the reasons I did not go to architecture school.

We, as humans, tend to categorize things. We do that especially with styles and philosophies. Even worse, we tend to think in static terms, so we can't really grasp variances and changes easily so tend to use blanket definitions and judgements. Modernism is a great example of that.

There were some people who called themselves Modernists. There were also many, many more who did not, or even openly rebelled against the term. They still get lumped into the modernist fold, however, when looking back in time. We mistakenly apply theories and intentions to work that the designer never had.

modernism (I use the lower case here to refer to a more general description) is a fundamental change in thinking. It is importantly not a style on its own, though led to many styles. In an architectural sense, modernism really reflects a way of thinking about buildings where the building was designed around functional and esthetic needs. It was a top down design, as opposed to the more traditional way of designing, which was essentially a kit of parts that one would use to assemble replica structures. In that sense modernism was more about individuality but relationship to the environment. However, how different movements during the modernist times did that varied.

Modernism (with a capital) was one specific philosophy (NOT a style!!!) that came about. Modernism promoted an outright rebellion against tradition. It is important to note, however, that this only reflected one group of people. However, those people tried to essentially take over general modernism, and tried to apply their specific doctrine to anyone who fell in that period.

Here's where the challenge comes in to play. On one hand you have a whole large group of people more or less doing their own thing, but being inspired by, and in return inspiring others. On the other hand, you have a group which has a very definite doctrine, and wants to impose that over all. Then you have an academic community (in this case both educational as well as critical) which is trying to pigeonhole everyone and set precise definitions to what is otherwise an unrelated body of work. So now you have designers associated with certain styles that they never agreed with. To top it off, you have now set a stage for a reactionary group of designers and critics trying to rebel against certain designers and styles not because of the specific work, but because of an objection to the philosophies that the original designer never intended or had.

In this case, you are applying a certain doctrine to design styles that never related. Even worse, you are lumping all styles outside of modernism under another simple umbrella. Many of those styles where seen as just as disruptive and just as distasteful as you are currently looking at modernism as. Because we can see all of historic styles in one group, and are completely familiar with them, and have had time to cull and tweak them to be the perfect collection, they have become comfortable to us. If we were to take away any and all knowledge and impression of modern design, we would look at those other design styles as a cacophony of overdone and conflicting details simply because we are applying a different spectrum.

Oh, Modernism as the specific philosophical doctrine is dead. However, Modern Design is still very much happening. Even those replicated traditional buildings are still now designed in a modern fashion, figuring out the space layout and needs first, and then applying a decoration to them. Form follows function is, of course, always cited as the manifesto of modern design. However that phrase has become a bit twisted to imply that modernism means a lack of details and ornament. Louis Sullivan certainly never subscribed to the idea that modern design was the elimination of all decoration or design.
I think you're getting caught up in definitions here. I wouldn't say that modernism as a philosophy and modernism as design are one and the same. However, they grew out of the same conditions and have common roots. I see modernism (the dawn of the modern age) as a collective psychological state of mind that was both creative and destructive in its nature. From individual writers and artists to city planners and politicians many shared a view and an idea that the world needs to change and that that change needs to be radical, modern or even destructive. That doesn't mean there weren't differences in opinions and even bitter arguments about how this would be achieved. But to say that modernist design was apolitical and that its champions just thought in would be neat to design buildings around their function (whatever that really means) is naive. In this case I don't see any particular reason to make any distinction between modernism and modernism. On the contrary, the key to understanding this phenomenon is to see it as a whole.

We might compare this to what has happened in our own society these past decades. For example, it would be incorrect to claim that the rise of global digital capitalism has nothing to do with the emergence of post-modern and "high-tech" architecture. Indeed the very opposite is true. That is how ideology works.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2015, 07:09 PM   #607
Brucey7
Registered User
 
Brucey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 179

Whilst I think that to pose the question 'has modernism failed' is hopelessly simplistic, and I can appreciate a variety of architectural styles, an observation of my own is that if you look at pictures of areas or streets that were classically styled and were replaced by brutalist and modernist structures it does seem to be a step down - a deterioration, though of course other factors may be in play aswell. Just my two cents.
__________________
Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Americans care about their past, but for short term gain they ignore it and tear down everything that matters... This is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won't all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Brucey7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2015, 04:25 AM   #608
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
I think you're getting caught up in definitions here. I wouldn't say that modernism as a philosophy and modernism as design are one and the same. However, they grew out of the same conditions and have common roots. I see modernism (the dawn of the modern age) as a collective psychological state of mind that was both creative and destructive in its nature. From individual writers and artists to city planners and politicians many shared a view and an idea that the world needs to change and that that change needs to be radical, modern or even destructive. That doesn't mean there weren't differences in opinions and even bitter arguments about how this would be achieved. But to say that modernist design was apolitical and that its champions just thought in would be neat to design buildings around their function (whatever that really means) is naive. In this case I don't see any particular reason to make any distinction between modernism and modernism. On the contrary, the key to understanding this phenomenon is to see it as a whole.

We might compare this to what has happened in our own society these past decades. For example, it would be incorrect to claim that the rise of global digital capitalism has nothing to do with the emergence of post-modern and "high-tech" architecture. Indeed the very opposite is true. That is how ideology works.
You are assuming that all design and all planing and all art is methodically planned out, with deep meanings and symbology. This way of thinking is common in many architecture and design universities, and precisely why I was turned off the idea of going to a big name architectural college. The problem is, that is not how buildings happen, and not how thinking really works. You are trying to fit styles into a thesis, and I think your dissatisfaction with Modernism comes from not being able to fit everything into that thesis.

Yes there was true "Modern" school. But everything modern did not belong just to that school of thought. Modern was a term borrowed, stolen, misused and twisted. And often posthumously applied. Most architecture never goes through that process. It is built by companies, but people, by cities. Architecture is a reflection of people's (and businesses) lives - most modern architecture wasn't trying to force change - it was shaped by it. Those poor spaces are in many cases not bad initial designs, they were the result of a community that never succeeded. The architecture is just the artifacts left behind.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2015, 11:29 PM   #609
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,348
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
You are assuming that all design and all planing and all art is methodically planned out, with deep meanings and symbology
No, but architects uncounsciously incorporate trends and ideals of the times into their buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
You are trying to fit styles into a thesis, and I think your dissatisfaction with Modernism comes from not being able to fit everything into that thesis.
I like early modernism, and indeed some of the later stuff. However it does have a lot of flaws which would be ridiculous to deny. You assume too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
Yes there was true "Modern" school. But everything modern did not belong just to that school of thought. Modern was a term borrowed, stolen, misused and twisted.
Again, what you call it is irrelevant. Of course everything built during a certain area doesn't reflect the times, but the vast majority does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
Most architecture never goes through that process. It is built by companies, but people, by cities. Architecture is a reflection of people's (and businesses) lives - most modern architecture wasn't trying to force change - it was shaped by it.
Yet modernism if often criticized for failing to reflect the needs of people. The reason being that buildings were designed by individuals who had certain ideas about how people should live and what 'functional' should mean. Forcing change or being shaped by it, either way many of the ideals of modernism were based on utopian dreams.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2015, 05:49 AM   #610
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
No, but architects uncounsciously incorporate trends and ideals of the times into their buildings.



I like early modernism, and indeed some of the later stuff. However it does have a lot of flaws which would be ridiculous to deny. You assume too much.



Again, what you call it is irrelevant. Of course everything built during a certain area doesn't reflect the times, but the vast majority does.



Yet modernism if often criticized for failing to reflect the needs of people. The reason being that buildings were designed by individuals who had certain ideas about how people should live and what 'functional' should mean. Forcing change or being shaped by it, either way many of the ideals of modernism were based on utopian dreams.
But many of those impressions are hindsight. I am not trying to debate whether the architecture itself was good or bad. Some was good, some was bad. Same with the neighborhoods.

What I am trying to get at, is that you are looking at it from the standpoint that designers (because I think there was more than just Architects involved) operated in a vacuum, used the buildings to try and create a sense of place and society based around a preconceived highly thought out social theory.

I am saying that modern architecture was reflective of the spirit of the people. Remember, they did not have the hindsight that we have today. The downsides we so plainly see were complete invisible to them. The failures of the buildings and spaces were failures not because the architect applied a wrong style or even a wrong philosophy, but because the very spirit of the times turned out to be flawed.

That's where I have such a problem with the name modernism, because that social theory which was a driving force for certain artforms, does not align itself with architectural structures, which by their very nature have to be practical items with a purpose.

After WWII, you had a society trying to deal with great turmoil and change. The world had done a total flip on them, they were left with rubble and ruins, and every single thing about their lives needed to be questioned.

In the US, there quickly came a period of great optimism. They found themselves looking forward to the future, commercialism seem to bring nothing but great things to everyone. The popular styles reflected a kind of clean-washed futuristic grace, with a touch of populism. People ignored at best, completely forgot about at worst, things like poverty and crime and the environment. Those are the things that ended up doing in Mid Century Modernism.

In Europe, you had a different situation. You didn't have the prosperity, the optimism. Capitalism was not seen as perfect, in fact it was often seen as anything but. People were trying to find a new social structure that fit with a modern technological world. Architecture often had to fill a role of being a symbol for particular notions or services. It was often designed not for what it encouraged, but what it prevented. In the end, it turned out life had different ideas than what people had predicted.

50 years from now, we are going to look back on design in early 2000s and think we were idiots. There is thread on container architecture. Only now suddenly this great green movement is being shown to be quite environmentally unfriendly and requires compromise of design. But we had to go through that learning and thinking stage, not just as a single architect, but as a culture as a whole - the tastes and trends. And 150 years from now, they are going to look back on us nostalgically and think how wonderful it was and why they never do it anymore.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2015, 12:50 PM   #611
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,348
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
But many of those impressions are hindsight. I am not trying to debate whether the architecture itself was good or bad. Some was good, some was bad. Same with the neighborhoods.

What I am trying to get at, is that you are looking at it from the standpoint that designers (because I think there was more than just Architects involved) operated in a vacuum, used the buildings to try and create a sense of place and society based around a preconceived highly thought out social theory.

I am saying that modern architecture was reflective of the spirit of the people. Remember, they did not have the hindsight that we have today. The downsides we so plainly see were complete invisible to them. The failures of the buildings and spaces were failures not because the architect applied a wrong style or even a wrong philosophy, but because the very spirit of the times turned out to be flawed.

That's where I have such a problem with the name modernism, because that social theory which was a driving force for certain artforms, does not align itself with architectural structures, which by their very nature have to be practical items with a purpose.

After WWII, you had a society trying to deal with great turmoil and change. The world had done a total flip on them, they were left with rubble and ruins, and every single thing about their lives needed to be questioned.

In the US, there quickly came a period of great optimism. They found themselves looking forward to the future, commercialism seem to bring nothing but great things to everyone. The popular styles reflected a kind of clean-washed futuristic grace, with a touch of populism. People ignored at best, completely forgot about at worst, things like poverty and crime and the environment. Those are the things that ended up doing in Mid Century Modernism.

In Europe, you had a different situation. You didn't have the prosperity, the optimism. Capitalism was not seen as perfect, in fact it was often seen as anything but. People were trying to find a new social structure that fit with a modern technological world. Architecture often had to fill a role of being a symbol for particular notions or services. It was often designed not for what it encouraged, but what it prevented. In the end, it turned out life had different ideas than what people had predicted.

50 years from now, we are going to look back on design in early 2000s and think we were idiots. There is thread on container architecture. Only now suddenly this great green movement is being shown to be quite environmentally unfriendly and requires compromise of design. But we had to go through that learning and thinking stage, not just as a single architect, but as a culture as a whole - the tastes and trends. And 150 years from now, they are going to look back on us nostalgically and think how wonderful it was and why they never do it anymore.
You seem to be under the impression that the spirit of the times can only be captured in hindsight, which is incorrect. There was no doubt a vast number of people who understood exactly what modernism was, its flaws and that it was going to fail. We don't need 50 years to understand that a lot of the architecture and planning of our times is flawed and ideological.

You assume that everything that happens in history is logical and sensible, or at least was at the times and that it is only in hindsight everything becomes clear. This is certainly not true. It is even a dangerous belief as it generalizes society and distorts it to look like one huge single minded organism. This line of thinking also dulls critical thinking.

Regarding society, it doesn't make sense to say that the failure of modernism wasn't the fault of architects but the fault of the spirit of the times. These two are not separable. Architects always react to the times either by going along with ideology or going against it.

When it comes to the post-war era there was certainly great optimism and wealth in Europe as well, and certainly much questioning of capitalism in America. And again, you generalize and claim that everybody bought into this ideology of the modern age with its highways, cars, suburbs, shopping malls and concrete architecture. I think your view is extremely pessimistic and condescending
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2015, 03:35 AM   #612
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
You seem to be under the impression that the spirit of the times can only be captured in hindsight, which is incorrect. There was no doubt a vast number of people who understood exactly what modernism was, its flaws and that it was going to fail. We don't need 50 years to understand that a lot of the architecture and planning of our times is flawed and ideological.

You assume that everything that happens in history is logical and sensible, or at least was at the times and that it is only in hindsight everything becomes clear. This is certainly not true. It is even a dangerous belief as it generalizes society and distorts it to look like one huge single minded organism. This line of thinking also dulls critical thinking.

Regarding society, it doesn't make sense to say that the failure of modernism wasn't the fault of architects but the fault of the spirit of the times. These two are not separable. Architects always react to the times either by going along with ideology or going against it.

When it comes to the post-war era there was certainly great optimism and wealth in Europe as well, and certainly much questioning of capitalism in America. And again, you generalize and claim that everybody bought into this ideology of the modern age with its highways, cars, suburbs, shopping malls and concrete architecture. I think your view is extremely pessimistic and condescending
We can't even seem to agree on what Modernism is today. While there were many opinions and many critics, there was never any general consensus about Modernism. For that matter there isn't much today.

Quite the opposite. I don't think there is any cohesive logic or sense in design. That is why there are called movements - every piece of work takes some kind of inspiration from, or reacts to, previous pieces of work. It is a very dynamic and amorphous undertaking, which is what makes it so special. It is only in hindsight that we can group works together, choosing to include some, choosing to exclude others, deciding which is successful and which is a failure. Nobody went out and specifically designed something to be a failure. For that matter did it really fail, or did it simply not meet a future goal that was not part of the initial goals?

Which goes back to to original point of the thread. modernism didn't fail. It is just that some - many - modern designs don't meet today's needs and ideals.
__________________

ThatOneGuy liked this post
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2015, 03:13 PM   #613
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,348
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
Nobody went out and specifically designed something to be a failure. For that matter did it really fail, or did it simply not meet a future goal that was not part of the initial goals?
Certainly many modernist creations were designed - maybe not to fail - but at least not to be successful. In many cases these projects were quick fixes, but most of the time there seem to have been no consideration of what people needed, but only what the architect and the government wanted. It has always puzzled me why modernism is called functional when it is anything but. It doesn't take a genius to understand that a "tower in the park" model or a horrid concrete estate turning its back on the city are bad ideas. My point is that we shouldn't seek to rationalize the construction of these awful modernist creations but rather to understand that the modernization process itself was defined by completely irrational ideas of what society is and should be. This is the "dark side" of modernism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
Which goes back to to original point of the thread. modernism didn't fail. It is just that some - many - modern designs don't meet today's needs and ideals.
We can't say modernism failed because there are of course many modernist designs around the world that are universally loved. However, the planning aspect of modernism failed in many ways and created hostile environments. We have to remember that a lot of the modernist architecture being pulled down today has met this fate because it is considered to be ugly. The housing estates are biting the dust due to the fact that they have failed in most ways. The only reason they ever attracted tenants or buyers was because they offered vastly superior living standards compared to the old run-down buildings in the city. Modernist housing lasted this long not because its design, but despite it.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2015, 04:22 AM   #614
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
We can't say modernism failed because there are of course many modernist designs around the world that are universally loved. However, the planning aspect of modernism failed in many ways and created hostile environments. We have to remember that a lot of the modernist architecture being pulled down today has met this fate because it is considered to be ugly. The housing estates are biting the dust due to the fact that they have failed in most ways. The only reason they ever attracted tenants or buyers was because they offered vastly superior living standards compared to the old run-down buildings in the city. Modernist housing lasted this long not because its design, but despite it.
But it is not the modern design itself that is the failure here. It is the bad design that failed. And as you pointed out, there is also very good modern design. In many cases even if those buildings had traditional facades, they would still fail, because as you pointed out the failure was more about not understanding, or prioritizing, daily life.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2015, 11:42 AM   #615
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,167
Likes (Received): 57845

What modernism actually failed at is to create a grammar, a universal architectural language that is easily understood and applied by everyone. In classical architecture and its universally appliable language, even the most untalented architect or house builder can create something that just works. This safety fence disappears with the modernist approach, thus architects/builders can fall deeper than ever, and as a result we got a majority of mediocre or even dreadful buildings the past decades.



Sebastiano Serlio's canon of the Classical Orders, a prime example of classical architectural theory. Commons, license free.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

CNB30, doguorsi2 liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2015, 04:50 PM   #616
djbowen
Registered User
 
djbowen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,456
Likes (Received): 833

Architecture - matter of taste. I live in and work in modernist buildings and love them.

Planning - yes. Modernist urban planning is highly unsustainable from an economic and environmental perspective, which is why cities worldwide are turning to increased walkability and transit.
__________________

erbse, Swede liked this post
djbowen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2015, 03:13 AM   #617
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

But I would argue that except for a handful of crazy architecture nerds, most people tend to prefer the quality of older buildings as opposed to most modern soulless boxes
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation

Feel The Bern #2016

doguorsi2 liked this post
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2015, 11:40 AM   #618
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,505
Likes (Received): 2872


That would explain why (in my city at least) the most expensive flats are prewar buildings in the historic city center. The only modern (and postmodern) buildings which come close are so expensive either because they are in prewar building districts or have a great view (i.e. a highrise tower or located next to the river or a park).




Photos from photoriga.com
__________________

erbse, skymantle liked this post
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2015, 01:35 PM   #619
TRTL
TRTL
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 851

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriedisUnIzlietne View Post

That would explain why (in my city at least) the most expensive flats are prewar buildings in the historic city center. The only modern (and postmodern) buildings which come close are so expensive either because they are in prewar building districts or have a great view (i.e. a highrise tower or located next to the river or a park).
Old buildings need expensive investments to reach the actual comfort criteria. As I have observed, it means that the high interest is not the only reason for the high price, but also that you cannot use it without heavy renovation, excluding the poorest of course.
TRTL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2015, 01:54 PM   #620
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,348
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
But it is not the modern design itself that is the failure here. It is the bad design that failed. And as you pointed out, there is also very good modern design. In many cases even if those buildings had traditional facades, they would still fail, because as you pointed out the failure was more about not understanding, or prioritizing, daily life.
As I have tried to explain you cannot separate modernist planning from modernist design. Those buildings would never have traditional facades because that is not the way classical architecture was built. Seriously, you cannot create unhistorical 'what if' scenarios to back up your arguments. Modernism was often successful when it was forced to follow classical ideas of planning. A gapsite in a row of traditional buildings filled in with a modernist design succeeds because it follows a traditional way of constructing buildings.
Mr Bricks 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 04:05 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