Althouse: "Cities are no longer filling with vaulting, flowing, gooey, non-orthogonal buildings engineered through advanced computing power."

January 30, 2024

"Cities are no longer filling with vaulting, flowing, gooey, non-orthogonal buildings engineered through advanced computing power."

"Architecture has been hit by a new sobriety. Tradition, apparently, is back.The reaction against ultramodern architecture arrived slowly at first, but accelerated with the financial crash of 2008, as the world economy and many political systems became increasingly unsteady. Amid this apparent chaos, the stability of neoclassical architecture was advocated from the very top. In 2020, the United States president Donald Trump signed an executive order advocating 'classical' architecture, including 'beautiful' traditional styles such as Greek Revival, Gothic, Georgian and neoclassical. This followed the British Conservative government appointing the late philosopher Roger Scruton to head a 2018 commission ensuring that new housing would be 'built beautiful,' which Scruton made clear meant 'traditional.' Even earlier, in 2014, the Chinese president Xi Jinping issued an edict demanding an end to 'weird architecture' in China.... And in the European Union, particularly Germany and Poland, projects of historical reconstruction – the kind that, in a previous decade, might have involved ultramodern non-orthogonal CGI-optimised arts centres – now feature new traditional-style buildings with gables and pitched roofs, set along winding lanes...."

Writes Owen Hatherley, in "The new architecture wars/Traditionalist and modernist architecture are both mass-produced, industrial and international. Is there an alternative?" (Aeon).

36 comments:

Aggie said...: There is some modern architecture that is pleasing to the eye and that gives a sense of beauty to the beholder - but examples are few, and far between. What's so wrong about wanting to be inside of something beautifully functional, instead of starkly functional and brutal? Nothing, as far as I can see. I much prefer being surrounded by something that shows a sense of vision and purpose, something that brings (dare I say it) a sense of appreciation.

Appreciation and gratitude are good, healthy things, regardless of what popular culture may have been trying to bleach out of us.; 1/30/24, 8:57 AM
lgv said...: The idea that Trump and Xi, or government in general can dictate what other people build (beyond governmental projects) is ridiculous. Styles and preferences change. Parachute pants are back. Tbere are differences between "modern" and "contemporary". Some newer stuff can look like early Soviet block, but I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have no desire to see a Greek revival revival.; 1/30/24, 9:19 AM
gspencer said...: There's a lamp post out just waiting to have to honor of having Frank Gehry hanging from it.; 1/30/24, 9:25 AM
Rich said...: Making designs is the easy part. Getting buildings through all the layers of politics, legal permissions and practical problems is the difficult part. "Architecture” by definition is suboptimal in building costs and space utilization. AI will optimize these. But you won't want to pay for the building.; 1/30/24, 9:29 AM
hombre said...: Many US cities can't fill the buildings they have. Architecture won't change that.; 1/30/24, 9:30 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: I live near a wealthy 1970s subdivision. Miami Vice architecture has not aged well.; 1/30/24, 9:45 AM
Temujin said...: Leave the architecture to the architects. Government, or a governmental official can have an opinion- just as I have an opinion. But even the master planners of a metropolitan area, or a small village, have to work with, through an architect. They have the skills and vision government officials do not. If the officials don't like their look presented to them, they don't approve it. They move to the next one. The problem is that this ends up with city officials either being (a) bought and paid for by large developers and/or architectural firms and you end up with a mish-mash of all kinds of architecture and buildings that are out of place, or should not even exist. Or worse (b) city officials with taste up their butts making the determination for the rest of us how the city or town will look.

As for private builds, there will always be city codes and regulations imposed on you. More in some areas than others.

As I watch our skyline and cityscape rapidly change here in Sarasota, FL, I wish I could make out who or what the plan is, or was. But I cannot. And as such, I find I'm an observer of my own town's growth and have little to say about how it ends up looking. Sure, there are public hearings, but those are more show than substance and seemingly a papered over walk-through of a fait accompli.

All that said, amongst the helter-skelter architecture going up, there are hopes for a couple of gems. The Sarasota Orchestra has hired a world-class architect firm to design an acoustically perfect, and stunning new symphony hall. I hope it becomes a striking iconic building for the region and not just a big White Elephant. Only time will tell. But it will not, I am sure, be in a Greek Revival mode. That simply does not fit everywhere, and here on the Gulf, it would look ridiculous.; 1/30/24, 9:47 AM
Howard said...: Architecture... Where Bad Art intersects with Incompetent Engineering; 1/30/24, 10:06 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Shorter essay:

"You know who else wanted beautiful, classical architecture....Hitler!!!"; 1/30/24, 10:09 AM
Oso Negro said...: At least mass-produced traditionalist doesn’t have that Soviet vibe; 1/30/24, 10:22 AM
Narr said...: Should I renew my sub for "Wattle and Daub Quarterly"?; 1/30/24, 10:23 AM
Original Mike said...: "Getting buildings through all the layers of politics, legal permissions and practical problems is the difficult part."

Takes a skilled individual to navigate it, wouldn't you agree?; 1/30/24, 10:35 AM
Quaestor said...: From an interstellar distance, Earth is a sphere orbiting within a much larger sphere of a nearby class G star's gravitational influence. Within that sphere of mutual attraction are many other spheres and sphere-like bodies, together with an uncounted number of far smaller irregular shapes, and beyond, radiating outward in all directions, the ever-expanding sphere of the universe -- spheres with spheres with spheres. From that perspective, the young architect could conclude many things that lead him to eschew his t-square and triangle and imagine a space enclosed by curves. How natural, how at one with everything. From this perspective, EPOCOT Center naturally flows.

If you want a visceral appreciation of the folly of 20th-century "visionary" architecture, try living in a geodesic mountain chalet. At first, it's an adventure. Look at my triangular bathroom! The tub doesn't blend in very nicely, but isn't it interesting? Then days and weeks go by and you notice dust and detritus accumulating in those virtually inaccessible acute corners. Cleaning becomes an adventure as well. Then the hard-to-reach corners become havens for vermin, and the adventure becomes a struggle. Then you realize the only practical way to live in a dome is to dispense with interior walls. They aren't needed, after all. Interior walls serve no structural function, the dome supports itself. But are you really comfortable taking a dump in full view of family or guests? Then you realize the dome is space for one, not two.; 1/30/24, 10:37 AM
Magilla Gorilla said...: All due respect to Temujin (and that's a lot), leaving architecture to the architects is a bad idea. Here in the Chicago area that's what got us the execrable State of Illinois building, whose occupants had to line their windows with aluminum foil to avoid being roasted alive. It's ugly, too. Even the sainted Frank Lloyd Wright designed buildings that did not work very well. Those flat roofs often leak. During a brief stint working for a caterer I realized that it is impossible to carry a tray from the kitchen to the living room in Wright's Robie House (near the University of Chicago): up two steps, to a narrow right-angle hall, down two steps. The core of the problem is that many architects want to be fine artists, and design buildings for their own aggrandizement, not to meet the needs of future residents and onlookers. So be a painter or a sculptor, and leave architecture to more generous souls.; 1/30/24, 10:54 AM
rehajm said...: Pei is dead. You were Pei...

...the brutalist stuff is/was a mistake. Ever try to exist in one of these places? Hot in Summer, cold in Winter, they leak, floor plans are stupid- good riddance.

'weird architecture'. Funny I looked up the hanzi:

奇怪的建築

Weird...; 1/30/24, 11:03 AM
Michael said...: Walk any public university and the contrast is startling. Beautiful classical buildings from a century ago sit next to soulless boxes thrown up in the 60s-70s. Then the 90s-00s saw lots of garish architecture, usually financed by some new money tech-bro looking to cement his legacy in the elite world.

Campus is hideous these days.; 1/30/24, 11:11 AM
Rocco said...: gspencer said...
“There's a lamp post out just waiting to have to honor of having Frank Gehry hanging from it.”

Frank Gehry on the Simpsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MyT-wk0DuI; 1/30/24, 12:08 PM
Rocco said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/30/24, 12:08 PM
Rocco said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/30/24, 12:08 PM
n.n said...: The influence of diversity dogma plagues architecture in uniform blocs.; 1/30/24, 12:20 PM
Quaestor said...: "Campus is hideous these days."

I attended many classes and seminars in a campus building designed by a visionary architect who later became a tenured member of the university. Instead of an orthogonal cuboid, this structure was a cylinder. (It's been replaced recently.) In the y-axis plan, it consisted of concentric rings. An outer ring of faculty offices, a ring-corridor, then a ring of large lecture rooms with doors facing outward, then a ring of smaller lecture rooms with doors facing inward, then another ring-corridor surrounding the inner core which contained a wide spiral ramp leading from ground level to the top floor. The ring-corridors were joined by five radial corridors, the only straight lines in the concept.

The organizational concept was logical and effective. Where's my professor's office? Go to the outer ring-corridor and keep walking to the right. You'll inevitably pass it on the left. Your classroom is inevitably on the right unless it's situated on the inner ring-corridor. Is there a fire alarm? Head for a radial corridor and follow it to the core ramp. Very neat. But the logic included whiteboards with horizons, a significant duh? moment.; 1/30/24, 12:24 PM
Rocco said...: History ultimate shows us the difference between great style and a fad. A tuxedo is timeless style; parachute pants were just a Hammertime fad.

Good architecture has to be functional and fit the human scale. Soviet and Fascist architecture may have aped classic styles, but the inherent inhumanity of their philosophies shown through in the final product.; 1/30/24, 12:25 PM
Quaestor said...: "Pei is dead."

I have always despised Pei's pyramid -- not because of what it is, but where it is.; 1/30/24, 12:39 PM
Howard said...: I always appreciated the brutalist buildings that dominated UC Santa Barbara in the late 1970's. It was a perfect contrast to the splendor of Campus Point and the Golden Coldwater formation protruding from the manzanita growing in the purple Sespi formation of the Santa Ynez mountains.; 1/30/24, 1:21 PM
Ampersand said...: Architecture is primarily about function (broadly conceived) and emotion. There's no formula.; 1/30/24, 2:00 PM
PM said...: The original alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid_Heights; 1/30/24, 2:08 PM
Kate said...: My mind went immediately to Howard Roark's organic architecture. As with all things Randian, my girlish enthusiasm for her ideas has been tempered.; 1/30/24, 2:15 PM
mikee said...: That sharp corner on the National Gallery of Art in DC always struck me as architectural vanity set in concrete. So are a lot of other architectural details. Real estate is location, location, location. Architecture needs to be purpose, purpose, purpose.; 1/30/24, 2:36 PM
Paddy O said...: Rocco, I was about to post about Gehry's crumbled paper, which was in a documentary about him. And there it is in the Simpsons clip!; 1/30/24, 3:11 PM
Michael said...: The shard in London is an abomination on many levels. Not least its incongruity and contempt for the traditional. At street level it is the entrance to a mall. Simply awful. Although there is a fabulous Chinese restaurant at the top.; 1/30/24, 3:23 PM
stutefish said...: "The idea that Trump and Xi, or government in general can dictate what other people build (beyond governmental projects) is ridiculous."

One, Xi is literally a dictator. He can dictate what other people build, by definition.

Two, Trump was merely dictating government architecture policies, something well within his presidential authority.; 1/30/24, 4:15 PM
Rocco said...: n.n said...
"The influence of diversity dogma plagues architecture in uniform blocs."

May I suggest a few small haiku-rrections?

The influence of dogma
diversity plagues
architecture in uniform blocs.

Stil two syllables over though, darn it.; 1/30/24, 4:17 PM
Patrick Henry said...: I'm a licensed (registered, if you prefer) architect. There are huge challenges to building any style of architecture:

1. I can't find an attribution for this: building codes have done more to ruin architecture than architects ever could.

Modern codes and their mandates force things in to design that are just plain ugly. All in the name of "safety", "accessibility", or "sustainability". Many of these code required items don't have hard evidence to prove their efficacy (especially the "sustainable" ones). It doesn't matter the style, building codes will prevent more pleasing design choices or add ugly requirements.

2. Modern construction materials and techniques simply aren't durable. This applies to all styles. A "traditional" design will be built with veneers (stone/wood/etc.) instead of solid blocks. The systems that adhere the veneers and attach the backing are much more prone to deterioration from the elements.

One of the reasons for using veneers vs. whole material also is justified by "energy efficiency" and "sustainability". Additionally, modern technologies are challenging to fit in to traditional building materials.

3. Cost. The costs of construction are simply astronomical. Ratios of labor to material costs are significantly different. Around the early 1900's you could pay 1/3 labor and 2/3 materials - and for that labor get skilled craftsmen (masons, carpenters, tilers, etc). Today it can be 1/2 labor + 1/2 materials or even 2/3 labor and 1/3 materials for quick & cheap "disposable" buildings.

4. Loss of Skills. There simply aren't as many skilled craftsmen (or "craftspersons"). The general trades (electricians, plumbers, mechanical, general construction) have shortages as it is, much less the master bricklayer or stonemason. The few highly skilled can demand very high prices.

5. Lack of will. The Empire State Building was built in one year. Our very simple basement finishing has taken 3 months. There is actually only about 3-4 weeks of full time labor required to finish it. A specialty bakery near us in a strip mall has been under construction for over a year. It can't be more than 1500 sq. ft. We've lost the will to get things done.

You can also this same loss of will with the California high speed rail boondoggle. Even if it was a worthwhile project (which it isn't), it should have been operational for years now. For even more fun with rails, look up the Minneapolis light rail extension.

We simply don't have the will to get things done. Someone will object. A lawsuit will be filed. Lawyers will get rich and the project will be delayed and delayed and delayed and maybe someday get started.

6. Finally, "modern" architecture can be beautiful. But it's very difficult to get right and even more difficult to construct in such a way that the elements don't destroy it and make it ugly. The wrong material choices and/or poor installation methods will create eyesores of every style, but modern architecture is particularly prone to it.

Style and fashion come and go over time and through the decades. The pendulum swings. Some form of modern will be in favor in the future. But the style choices aren't really the issue...

PS: I really dislike most of Frank Gehry's architecture. They're mostly just blobitecture. I do like a lot of Calatrava's work. And for sheer beauty, it's hard to beat Fay Jones's Thorncrown Chapel.; 1/30/24, 4:37 PM
Patrick Henry said...: I'm a licensed (registered, if you prefer) architect. There are huge challenges to building any style of architecture:

1. I can't find an attribution for this: building codes have done more to ruin architecture than architects ever could.

Modern codes and their mandates force things in to design that are just plain ugly. All in the name of "safety", "accessibility", or "sustainability". Many of these code required items don't have hard evidence to prove their efficacy (especially the "sustainable" ones). It doesn't matter the style, building codes will prevent more pleasing design choices or add ugly requirements.

2. Modern construction materials and techniques simply aren't durable. This applies to all styles. A "traditional" design will be built with veneers (stone/wood/etc.) instead of solid blocks. The systems that adhere the veneers and attach the backing are much more prone to deterioration from the elements.

One of the reasons for using veneers vs. whole material also is justified by "energy efficiency" and "sustainability". Additionally, modern technologies are challenging to fit in to traditional building materials.

3. Cost. The costs of construction are simply astronomical. Ratios of labor to material costs are significantly different. Around the early 1900's you could pay 1/3 labor and 2/3 materials - and for that labor get skilled craftsmen (masons, carpenters, tilers, etc). Today it can be 1/2 labor + 1/2 materials or even 2/3 labor and 1/3 materials for quick & cheap "disposable" buildings.

4. Loss of Skills. There simply aren't as many skilled craftsmen (or "craftspersons"). The general trades (electricians, plumbers, mechanical, general construction) have shortages as it is, much less the master bricklayer or stonemason. The few highly skilled can demand very high prices.

5. Lack of will. The Empire State Building was built in one year. Our very simple basement finishing has taken 3 months. There is actually only about 3-4 weeks of full time labor required to finish it. A specialty bakery near us in a strip mall has been under construction for over a year. It can't be more than 1500 sq. ft. We've lost the will to get things done.

You can also this same loss of will with the California high speed rail boondoggle. Even if it was a worthwhile project (which it isn't), it should have been operational for years now. For even more fun with rails, look up the Minneapolis light rail extension.

We simply don't have the will to get things done. Someone will object. A lawsuit will be filed. Lawyers will get rich and the project will be delayed and delayed and delayed and maybe someday get started.

6. Finally, "modern" architecture can be beautiful. But it's very difficult to get right and even more difficult to construct in such a way that the elements don't destroy it and make it ugly. The wrong material choices and/or poor installation methods will create eyesores of every style, but modern architecture is particularly prone to it.

Style and fashion come and go over time and through the decades. The pendulum swings. Some form of modern will be in favor in the future. But the style choices aren't really the issue...

PS: I really dislike most of Frank Gehry's architecture. They're mostly just blobitecture. I do like a lot of Calatrava's work. And for sheer beauty, it's hard to beat Fay Jones's Thorncrown Chapel.; 1/30/24, 4:37 PM
Temujin said...: magilla gorilla- While there may have been some buildings in Chicago that did not work, it is in my humble opinion, a shining example of what great architecture can do for a city. I love just walking around that town (or at least I used to) taking in, not only the buildings, but the streetscapes. While there were a few bum designs, there are so many great ones there.

In my former business, I used to have a number of companies I called on in Chicago (architecture & design firms), so I got to see the interior of so many great buildings- all around that city. Places like Monadnock Building. I'd go early just to walk around that building, up and down. Like entering another era. Again- Chicago as much as any US city, has so many great pieces of architecture.

I do believe Patrick Henry covered all of this topic perfectly. All of the points he lists are on target. One that strikes me when I see older quality builds that have so much detail is the loss of skills. And I wholeheartedly agree with his liking Calatrava.; 1/30/24, 9:09 PM
Jim said...: Re: Patrick Henry.

In December, we visited Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao. It looked cool from our hotel across the street. But once we got inside, my engineer mind said, “what a bunch of empty space.” Would much rather go back to Musee D’Orsay, a converted train station.; 1/31/24, 7:38 AM