Ever wondered why so much architecture nowadays – especially architecture that other architects rave about – looks as if it was designed by someone who’s got an inner ear balance disorder? Or what, really, is so bad about designing a building that pays homage to the past 2,000 years of architectural tradition?
Last June I had the opportunity to hear a devoted modernist architect, Dan Solomon, give a speech in which he skewered the modernist architectural movement in the United States and proposed a different way of looking at modern architecture, one that doesn’t jettison the past but builds on the best of the past.
Solomon is a founding member of the Congress for the New Urbanism. Yes, despite what some people may tell you, New Urbanism as an architectural and planning movement has plenty of room for modernist architects.
His talk was fascinating, and one I think many architects and others will enjoy reading, no matter what their position is on Modernism (though any architect who admits to not liking Modernism is usually subject to withering scorn, and Solomon explains why). And it explained to me why the Harvard School of Design (including its devotees on the New York Times’ architectural writing staff) holds such disproportionate sway over architectural thinking in America today.
Here's the LINK. Warning – it’s long. And I don’t have the slides he showed. But with a long holiday weekend looming, it should keep you busy.
Here’s a sample – he’s characterizing the attitudes of many of today’s Modernist architects:
“ ... Populist hostility to an abstract modernism is a philistine ignorance tobe ignored; references to vernacular building, the imperatives of place orclassicism are inadmissible, and dissonance, not harmony, is the order of the day.”
Happy reading.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
A Modernist architect skewers Modernism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
There's nothing wrong with paying homage to the past, but trying to fake the past is another thing. Some of my favorite buildings in boston for wxample are the very modenrn, edgy, bright colored dorms at MIT. To me, it shows the possibilities with architecture and engineering that would seem otherwise impossible. Most traditionalist will think they're ugly, but I find them inspiring. Here in Charlotte, ImaginOn and what I think Wachovia has proposed for North Tryon are just what this city needs. Please, let get beyond the retro textile-mill look and colonial, plantation house architecture. I'm not asking for the extreme denver art museum, just something a little more out of the box for Charlotte's 9and probably Mary's) staid, so-so traditional look.
Danimal
Mary, you're right, the article is extremely long, and rambling! From my brief review of the article, I got the sense that he was trying to get to the point that architecture reflects political thinking and political will.
Also, I get the sense that he is saying that those things change over time, leaving the structure standing as a relic.
I believe that our architecture should be secondary to functionality, by that I mean changeable. The structure is the structure, but our needs long term for that structure will need to change.
A good example is the Hearst Tower. It is a major structure, but when you are near it, you are not standing in awe of a building, but amid shops and a plaza. Not only that, but those slots are changeable. Currently, restaurants take most of the space, but once the Mint Museum of Craft and Design moves to South Tryon, the complexion will change.
Functionally, buildings should be considered to be 3 stories tall, even if they soar over 50 stories. These 3 stories esentially are what a pedestrian sees as they walk by, and the area that attracts that pedestrian to come in.
Wait, we're supposed to read something? On a holiday weekend? What's that about?
Mary, don't you realize that this forum is reserved for urban dwellers and suburbanites to take potshots at each other because they choose to live different lifestyles? If people actually start reading and commenting on articles written by people with some expertise in architecture, it'll get in the way of our exhortations to "move to the sticks" and "enjoy the gang members next door."
Don't you believe in democracy?
Well said Cato
Locally, we never get a chance to experience great architecture because everything is zoned for skyscrapers.
Every landowner is awaiting their winning lottery ticket: a developer who will build a 30-50 story condo or office building.
In our zest for density, crappy architecture,with few exceptions, is our destiny.
I got through most of the article and kinda lost whatever point he was trying to make.
There a lot of different views of what is Modern architecture.
It a major risk to do something that stands out in the crowd espically when its costly. That is why interiors are usally more modern than the exterior.
I also think there is a new Modern which takes it cues from the past such as the Hurst tower (Modern Art-Deco) and Courtside (Modern-Miami) Then you have a lot of first ward which is modern with classic lines.
What do you think of Steelhaus on Central that is going to be built. Is that Modern enough or Industrial enough? I love the look of it and was looking into purchasing one of the units.
I think the problem with people is when Modern first came out it was all white... little furniure... looked funny or out of place with other buildings and people felt it was uncomfortable to live every day in that type of space.
We are a people who like some consistancey in our lives and when you have just one building that stands out to me makes people uncomfortable such as the new ImagineON building just seems out of place.... Maybe once there are some other buildings around it will fit in better.
Finally it boils down to profit... today if it won't add to the bottom line then there is no reason to spend the extra money to make it different.
Here is an interesting post by former Charlotte architect Marianne Cusato on how NOLA residents have spoken against modern architecture:
Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY hosted a symposium this weekend on rebuilding and the future of New Orleans. The speakers included the winner of Brad Pitt's Global Green Competition, representatives from Acorn Housing, several others involved with planning efforts and a few displaced residents who had relocated to this area.
I was on a panel with the winner of the Global Green Competition, Matthew Berman from Workshop/APD. (http://competition.globalgreen.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=475). I presented the Katrina Cottages as well as a house I designed at the UDA Treme/LaFitte charrette. In my talk I discussed the feedback we'd received from the residents of Treme/LaFitte. We heard from them that they liked the look of the Shotguns, but wanted the plans be adapted to modern living and they had to be practical and affordable.
After we each presented our work we had a Q&A with the audience. The members of the audience that were from New Orleans, passionately attacked the "award winning" Global Green design. They were outraged that this project had been selected. They were upset that it had absolutely no resemblance of the existing neighborhood, either with the architecture or the plan. One woman stood up and explained to the architect that the "Historic" buildings weren't old and out dated. They were REALLY well designed, NOT because of the balustrades, brackets and architectural details, but because of the tall ceilings, cross ventilation and the materials. She was great because she elevated the conversation away from style to practical common sense.
The residents in the room were disgusted that modern designs were being imposed on them. The architect admitted that the residents that he had spoken to didn't like the modern designs, but that didn't stop him from proceeding with his work. It seemed more about his personal design exploration, rather than a project based in reality or any form of practicality. The amazing thing about the day was that no one in the room, NOLA residents or even the SLC students, were buying it - or cutting him any slack.
One resident pointed out that the architecture could either support or destroy a community. From the planning of where buildings go to the interior plans of where the kitchen is located. He went on to tell the architect of the GG Design that his building would destroy the community and probably cause people to kill themselves.
The professor at the school that was moderating our panel tried to let the guy off the hook by asking the audience if they could set aside the site plan, which he admitted was really bad, but looked only at the buildings, would they be happier with the designs, the room spontaneously yelled out NO.
Then he went on to try and talk about the theory and academic approach of the modern design, I interrupted and challenged that this was a real world problem not an academic experiment, that it was the wrong approach to ignore the existing context and the desires of the people. Instead we needed to listen to what people are asking for and through design, build communities. The room erupted in applause. The professor went on to dismiss me by saying "Well yes, that might be the populous view, but...."
We have so many struggles in the work we are doing down on the coast, politics at every level, but after a day like today, hearing the passion in the voices of these residents, it was so clear how important it is that we are down there and working so hard. The people want what we are doing, if we aren't there the modernist will be.
Post a Comment