I think a lot of it is officials thinking modern design is cheap to build but they don't look at the maintenance costs (see the Lloyds of London building which I sort of like, but costs roughly the building costs each year to maintain). Plus a lot of it is cluttered and people like elegant looking buildings. Look at the expansion of the Louvre (the pyramid). That worked well. Everyone loves it, because it fits the space. In fact, modern design reminds me of modern composers. Composers love atonal music because it shows other musicians how technically challenging the piece is to play and sing. The audience however hates it because they aren't professional musicians. They just want music that appeals emotionally to them. Architecture is the same. Modern design is to impress other architects, not the public, although they are the ones who have to live with it. (Look at the complaints the Architect had of the Barbarian when people swapped out the white transparent blinds with curtains because they needed to sleep. He was miffed that they 'ruined' his vision. While the residents needed to simply live in the building.)
Would be interesting to do a survey measuring how much more people would be willing to pay for traditional design. The train bridge would be a good test case for this. I like the masonry arches, but as a taxpayer I think I would prefer the cost of the concrete structure.
Really pleasing design for me includes the appreciation for and utilization of the masters of craft guilds. The human eye can - does - intuit when the human hand has been involved in creation. The appreciation then is close to the heart.
This. I was taking an architecture tour of the old buildings of downtown San Francisco the other day and thinking about the many different sorts of ornamental tiles-- often cheap terra-cotta ones-- that adorned the facades of companies' headquarters here in the 1890-1930 period. I think people feel better when the built environment they see around them is full of clear and emotionally resonant evocations of either the natural world, human handicraft, or both. There are many ways to create those evocations, and it's an underrated discipline to figure out which are the most efficient and scalable ways to do it in our time.
I always wish these articles talked more about Chicago. Birthplace of modern architecture, continues to have an exciting modernist architecture scene, people like it a lot, there are boat tours of all the architecture. What's different between Chicago and other places where modern architecture is much less liked?
Most people like the aesthetics of traditional architecture because it evokes traditional construction techniques that imply an attention to craftsmanship. Masonry walls and stone colonnades look like they took more time and effort to build than glass plates and steel frames, and people associate time and effort with quality. Ask them which of these compared buildings is better-built and they'll usually pick the brick house (apologies to the Commodores).
In new developments in the United States, those bricks are almost always a thin facade covering conventional wood-frame or steel post-and-truss construction. The same applies for those solid-looking stone blocks that are just 12-20 mm thick sheet cladding pinned onto a hollow or foam-filled frame.
The modernists thought this kind of "ornamentalism" was dishonest. Instead, they wanted form to follow function. They wanted people to live in buildings that were made like the way they looked, and they thought that simpler designs would make housing both higher in quality and more affordable.
Ultimately, they lost on both accounts - builders found ways to hide cheap construction methods in modern buildings too and they became both ubiquitous and associated with low quality anyway.
A nice presentation, but – in my opinion – makes the mistake of conflating "architecture" with "façade design". Architecture is the design of structures for use, e.g. shelter, work, other activity. It is no surprise that many people appreciate Gothic ornamentation and underlying craftsmanship; an important question, though, is utility. What is the space like inside? Is it airy? Light? Comfortable?
The category of library design seems to offer some of the best opportunities for comparison: There are many libraries built in previous centuries and styles, some feature stunning façades (and a few feature stunning interiors). But are they better for purpose than contemporary (assuming high-quality design) libraries? Do they offer plenty of places for citizens to read and relax and think, etc.? By and large, my guess is that the modern buildings do a better job of meeting the needs of the public.
Museums are another easy category to look at. The façade of the Metropolitan Museum of Art would undoubtedly rate highly among members of the public, but I can think of dozens of museums that are more enjoyable to visit, from an architectural standpoint.
Architects who claim we cannot build "traditional" because it is now too expensive to use triple brick walls or Terra cotta tiles and traditional materials are not insisting we use 1930 construction methods on 21st century modernist buildings. No, they reserve technological and materials innovation for the modern architecture, and deny it to traditional styles. But we can and should apply new materials to the trad styles too. My 1902 house now has fiberglass verandah columns that look like the traditional wood ones that rot. I like them, I'm sure purists will sneer.
Liking modern architecture is a luxury belief, signaling Intelectual refinement and superior status. I recall a survey of just where most of those famous architects lived themselves, and it was overwhelmingly traditional structures in traditional areas. When archtects and planners come to lecture in my city on urban design or propose projects I like to look up where they live. The proponents of dense urban living often have suburban-ish homes with 3 car garages. Instead of downtown they are often conveniently located to airports. And for those actually living in mod apartments in dense urban areas, too often they turn out to have secondary properties in fab recreation areas or in the south. Luxury beliefs personified.
Provocative! Good timing - I will be visiting Villa Savoye in Poissy this Friday. That’s the plan. “Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space. Living, Changing, New. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, only today can be given form. Only such architecture is creative.
Here's an informal appraisal of the value of traditional vs. sprawl neighborhoods. Prices for similar properties in the traditional neighborhoods are from 40% (Kentlands, MD, Orenco Station, OR) to 600% (interior lots, Seaside, FL) more than nearby sprawl neighborhoods. A variety of factors influence the prevalence of sprawl (the "modern" design).
1. White flight: Yep, sprawl is a racist, covert way to organize society. "No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist, he's got too much to do." claimed William Levitt, who pioneered the modern suburb with the development of his Levittowns
2. Reluctant financiers: If FNMA changed the kind of real estate for which it lends, traditional neighborhoods would be built pronto. Bankers are reluctant to fund anything too different from conventional suburban development. Consolidation of banks post-Global Financial Crisis only worsens this "conservative" underwriting tendency.
3. "Zoning" - Completely ineffective, only marginally better than no zoning. Any well-funded plutocrat can get zoning changed at the drop of a hat, at least in my California neighborhood.
It's also an invitation to poor neighborhood design and last-minute changes. The designations for use-based zoning (residential, office, industry, commerce) are typically decided as much as decades before actual building. Better to do form-based zoning that can actually determine the size and impact of the building before deciding its use. Mixed-use building is finally coming back in vogue, but it's been tough sledding. Higher densities (#5) are still resisted in suburbia despite the aging population that would love a flat rather than acreage to maintain.
4. Street design - The state of California (finally!) has addressed this. Streets designed almost exclusively for autos are the default in sprawl. Freeway-wide travel lanes and narrow sidewalks preceded this change. Newsom rejected the request to retrofit existing sprawl streets, but at least new development must accommodate pedestrians (and bicycles, and transit)
5. Low density - This, along with pedestrian-unfriendly streets, torpedoes even the possibility of viable transit. Never mind BRT, or light or heavy rail, in sprawl, buses on three-hour intervals are a commonplace. Density of 11 dwelling units per acre is the minimum (says Berkely planner Robert Cervero) for viable transit and neighborhood commerce.
The bottom line: sprawl maximizes resource consumption and the kinds of isolation and distraction from social integration that characterizes the American electorate. It's headed for a less-than-optimum destination.
Cost, convenience, and space requirements could be among the reasons we choose modern designs over traditional.
Based on my observations of traditional and contemporary architecture in India, I can say the former uses thick walls, a central courtyard, and high ceilings with stone and mortar as building material.
Thick walls are a great insulator against cold and heat. They also serve as the base for safe wardrobes.
The central courtyard ensures air circulation and light availability. Remember, the design comes from an era when there was no electricity. And I think it can significantly reduce your electricity bill.
High ceilings similarly have benefits related to air circulation and light availability.
Implementing such a design must surely be costly, though.
And where is the space in our crowded cities for such architecture? There's crowding even in villages and towns at present.
Besides, stone and mortar artisans must be hard to find in the era of brick and cement.
There's been a lot of works in progress posts on architecture... but I have to point out that this is so British / European coded... Do asians prefer victorians? Or do they prefer big tall glass skyscrapers? I would guess the latter!
We can do a thought experiment here. I'm an American, raised in an American cultural background and (generally) prefer traditional styles to more modern ones, including big tall glass skyscrapers of any nation. I have no background in East Asian culture, but from a pure "is it nice to look at" standpoint I prefer the more traditional Japanese or Chinese architecture to the newer stuff, it's not unreasonable to think that it could go the other way around. It's at least popular enough that Huawei built their Ox Horn campus entirely in European pastiche. Though you're right that the most applicable question here would be to find out if East Asians prefer their own traditional architecture to their own modern architecture.
Sure! I'm Asian American...raised in America... I honestly prefer big glass skyscrapers! And I even liked how those new copy and paste luxury apartments going up everywhere looked until I lived in one and realized they had no soundproofing. I think hudson yards is just the coolest thing... although I cannot deny that the new vanderbilt tower is cool too.
I've spent a decent amount of time in Japan these past few years and the dream housing there is a high rise condo in a newly built all glass buildings. For example, the Mori buldings such as Azabudai Hills.
Sure people enjoy the traditional Japanese architecture especally in the context of temples... but I'm thinking the "old European style buildings" are more like... tourist attractions in Asia. Like Huis Ten Bosch!
Haha you're maybe the first person I've talked to that doesn't feel the need to come up with economic justifications for 5-over-1s or Hudson Yards and just unselfconsciously likes them, which is frankly just pleasant to see as I think we're "business casing" ourselves to death on a lot of things.
I really want to see more variety done in these visual preference studies. Do Brits show a higher preference for their own traditional architecture or will any traditional architecture do? Is it vice versa for Japanese people? Does the ratio of preferring modern to traditional styles change if the modern building stays the same but the traditional style changes culture? How about modern styles that are more specific to a country instead of just the "international style?"
I actually think the presence of "old European style buildings" in theme parks is indicative that there's some sort of mass appeal for that style, in the same way that Disneyland capitalizes on nostalgia for walkable "Main Street USA." But my intuition is that there's nothing magical about specifically European styles and that the average person cares less about specifics and just prefers any style that has more detail/localized symmetry/hierarchical structure/affordances/human scale or whatever else seems to be generally lacking in "modern" styles.
Yes I agree that the Main Street USA is the American equivalent! I also wonder there's a confounding variable of cohesiveness. AKA if a person's architecture rating depends on the environment they live in / what the average building looks like.
When I lived in Oxford UK, obviously I would want more Oxford-style buildings and not modern monstrosities because it would stand out like a sore thumb. Like in Paris you walk around and all of the buildings look very similar and blend together except for that god awful ugly skyscraper Tour Montparnasse.
On the other hand, in Japan you walk around and each building is just completely different from the building next to it. There's no "fitting in" / cohesiveness to maintain. Like that one metaphor of european cities as a giant historical museum... feel like I read that in an abundance movement work in progress article or something like that haha.
Maybe I'll get dragged (to the extent that urbanist substack drags people) for saying this but I actually think that some of the only times I like modernist or especially post-modernist styles are when they're in otherwise entirely traditional environments where they have a ton of contrast. I get that you could reasonably describe it as parasitic, since if you scaled it you would wipe out all of the contrast but hey, the heart wants what it wants. I'm probably in the minority there so it would be interesting to see if there's a way to measure cohesiveness
Komar & Melamid did this with panache. Artnet: "In the 1990s, Komar & Melamid would realize their most-widely known work, “The People’s Choice.” These were paintings based on a series of polls, where they gathered data about the most-liked and least-liked kinds of art from publics in various countries, and then created works that incorporated all the best and worst traits. (By this method, almost all countries end up preferring figurative art where a historical figure is near a body of water, and hating some form of geometric abstraction.)" Producing horrible horrible paintings from the polled preferences.
I think a lot of it is officials thinking modern design is cheap to build but they don't look at the maintenance costs (see the Lloyds of London building which I sort of like, but costs roughly the building costs each year to maintain). Plus a lot of it is cluttered and people like elegant looking buildings. Look at the expansion of the Louvre (the pyramid). That worked well. Everyone loves it, because it fits the space. In fact, modern design reminds me of modern composers. Composers love atonal music because it shows other musicians how technically challenging the piece is to play and sing. The audience however hates it because they aren't professional musicians. They just want music that appeals emotionally to them. Architecture is the same. Modern design is to impress other architects, not the public, although they are the ones who have to live with it. (Look at the complaints the Architect had of the Barbarian when people swapped out the white transparent blinds with curtains because they needed to sleep. He was miffed that they 'ruined' his vision. While the residents needed to simply live in the building.)
Well stated. Most contemporary classical music is atonal experimental, 'challenging' garbage. Steve Reich & Philip Glass are exceptions.
I actually am fond of John Adams, but only because I know some music theory.
I'm not familiar with him. (Nor do I know more than really basic music theory).
Would be interesting to do a survey measuring how much more people would be willing to pay for traditional design. The train bridge would be a good test case for this. I like the masonry arches, but as a taxpayer I think I would prefer the cost of the concrete structure.
Really pleasing design for me includes the appreciation for and utilization of the masters of craft guilds. The human eye can - does - intuit when the human hand has been involved in creation. The appreciation then is close to the heart.
This. I was taking an architecture tour of the old buildings of downtown San Francisco the other day and thinking about the many different sorts of ornamental tiles-- often cheap terra-cotta ones-- that adorned the facades of companies' headquarters here in the 1890-1930 period. I think people feel better when the built environment they see around them is full of clear and emotionally resonant evocations of either the natural world, human handicraft, or both. There are many ways to create those evocations, and it's an underrated discipline to figure out which are the most efficient and scalable ways to do it in our time.
I always wish these articles talked more about Chicago. Birthplace of modern architecture, continues to have an exciting modernist architecture scene, people like it a lot, there are boat tours of all the architecture. What's different between Chicago and other places where modern architecture is much less liked?
Most people like the aesthetics of traditional architecture because it evokes traditional construction techniques that imply an attention to craftsmanship. Masonry walls and stone colonnades look like they took more time and effort to build than glass plates and steel frames, and people associate time and effort with quality. Ask them which of these compared buildings is better-built and they'll usually pick the brick house (apologies to the Commodores).
In new developments in the United States, those bricks are almost always a thin facade covering conventional wood-frame or steel post-and-truss construction. The same applies for those solid-looking stone blocks that are just 12-20 mm thick sheet cladding pinned onto a hollow or foam-filled frame.
The modernists thought this kind of "ornamentalism" was dishonest. Instead, they wanted form to follow function. They wanted people to live in buildings that were made like the way they looked, and they thought that simpler designs would make housing both higher in quality and more affordable.
Ultimately, they lost on both accounts - builders found ways to hide cheap construction methods in modern buildings too and they became both ubiquitous and associated with low quality anyway.
A nice presentation, but – in my opinion – makes the mistake of conflating "architecture" with "façade design". Architecture is the design of structures for use, e.g. shelter, work, other activity. It is no surprise that many people appreciate Gothic ornamentation and underlying craftsmanship; an important question, though, is utility. What is the space like inside? Is it airy? Light? Comfortable?
The category of library design seems to offer some of the best opportunities for comparison: There are many libraries built in previous centuries and styles, some feature stunning façades (and a few feature stunning interiors). But are they better for purpose than contemporary (assuming high-quality design) libraries? Do they offer plenty of places for citizens to read and relax and think, etc.? By and large, my guess is that the modern buildings do a better job of meeting the needs of the public.
Museums are another easy category to look at. The façade of the Metropolitan Museum of Art would undoubtedly rate highly among members of the public, but I can think of dozens of museums that are more enjoyable to visit, from an architectural standpoint.
People don’t realise that they are gazing at and fitting in, or fitting on - “the will of the epoch”.
Architects who claim we cannot build "traditional" because it is now too expensive to use triple brick walls or Terra cotta tiles and traditional materials are not insisting we use 1930 construction methods on 21st century modernist buildings. No, they reserve technological and materials innovation for the modern architecture, and deny it to traditional styles. But we can and should apply new materials to the trad styles too. My 1902 house now has fiberglass verandah columns that look like the traditional wood ones that rot. I like them, I'm sure purists will sneer.
Liking modern architecture is a luxury belief, signaling Intelectual refinement and superior status. I recall a survey of just where most of those famous architects lived themselves, and it was overwhelmingly traditional structures in traditional areas. When archtects and planners come to lecture in my city on urban design or propose projects I like to look up where they live. The proponents of dense urban living often have suburban-ish homes with 3 car garages. Instead of downtown they are often conveniently located to airports. And for those actually living in mod apartments in dense urban areas, too often they turn out to have secondary properties in fab recreation areas or in the south. Luxury beliefs personified.
Provocative! Good timing - I will be visiting Villa Savoye in Poissy this Friday. That’s the plan. “Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space. Living, Changing, New. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, only today can be given form. Only such architecture is creative.
— Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ludwig_mies_van_der_rohe_701741?utm_source=share&utm_medium=select
Here's an informal appraisal of the value of traditional vs. sprawl neighborhoods. Prices for similar properties in the traditional neighborhoods are from 40% (Kentlands, MD, Orenco Station, OR) to 600% (interior lots, Seaside, FL) more than nearby sprawl neighborhoods. A variety of factors influence the prevalence of sprawl (the "modern" design).
1. White flight: Yep, sprawl is a racist, covert way to organize society. "No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist, he's got too much to do." claimed William Levitt, who pioneered the modern suburb with the development of his Levittowns
2. Reluctant financiers: If FNMA changed the kind of real estate for which it lends, traditional neighborhoods would be built pronto. Bankers are reluctant to fund anything too different from conventional suburban development. Consolidation of banks post-Global Financial Crisis only worsens this "conservative" underwriting tendency.
3. "Zoning" - Completely ineffective, only marginally better than no zoning. Any well-funded plutocrat can get zoning changed at the drop of a hat, at least in my California neighborhood.
It's also an invitation to poor neighborhood design and last-minute changes. The designations for use-based zoning (residential, office, industry, commerce) are typically decided as much as decades before actual building. Better to do form-based zoning that can actually determine the size and impact of the building before deciding its use. Mixed-use building is finally coming back in vogue, but it's been tough sledding. Higher densities (#5) are still resisted in suburbia despite the aging population that would love a flat rather than acreage to maintain.
4. Street design - The state of California (finally!) has addressed this. Streets designed almost exclusively for autos are the default in sprawl. Freeway-wide travel lanes and narrow sidewalks preceded this change. Newsom rejected the request to retrofit existing sprawl streets, but at least new development must accommodate pedestrians (and bicycles, and transit)
5. Low density - This, along with pedestrian-unfriendly streets, torpedoes even the possibility of viable transit. Never mind BRT, or light or heavy rail, in sprawl, buses on three-hour intervals are a commonplace. Density of 11 dwelling units per acre is the minimum (says Berkely planner Robert Cervero) for viable transit and neighborhood commerce.
The bottom line: sprawl maximizes resource consumption and the kinds of isolation and distraction from social integration that characterizes the American electorate. It's headed for a less-than-optimum destination.
Cost, convenience, and space requirements could be among the reasons we choose modern designs over traditional.
Based on my observations of traditional and contemporary architecture in India, I can say the former uses thick walls, a central courtyard, and high ceilings with stone and mortar as building material.
Thick walls are a great insulator against cold and heat. They also serve as the base for safe wardrobes.
The central courtyard ensures air circulation and light availability. Remember, the design comes from an era when there was no electricity. And I think it can significantly reduce your electricity bill.
High ceilings similarly have benefits related to air circulation and light availability.
Implementing such a design must surely be costly, though.
And where is the space in our crowded cities for such architecture? There's crowding even in villages and towns at present.
Besides, stone and mortar artisans must be hard to find in the era of brick and cement.
When it comes to movies, most people prefer The Avengers. That doesn't make The Avengers better than Citizen Kane.
Of course people prefer buildings that are significantly more complex and expensive to build but who’s going to pay for it?
There's been a lot of works in progress posts on architecture... but I have to point out that this is so British / European coded... Do asians prefer victorians? Or do they prefer big tall glass skyscrapers? I would guess the latter!
We can do a thought experiment here. I'm an American, raised in an American cultural background and (generally) prefer traditional styles to more modern ones, including big tall glass skyscrapers of any nation. I have no background in East Asian culture, but from a pure "is it nice to look at" standpoint I prefer the more traditional Japanese or Chinese architecture to the newer stuff, it's not unreasonable to think that it could go the other way around. It's at least popular enough that Huawei built their Ox Horn campus entirely in European pastiche. Though you're right that the most applicable question here would be to find out if East Asians prefer their own traditional architecture to their own modern architecture.
Sure! I'm Asian American...raised in America... I honestly prefer big glass skyscrapers! And I even liked how those new copy and paste luxury apartments going up everywhere looked until I lived in one and realized they had no soundproofing. I think hudson yards is just the coolest thing... although I cannot deny that the new vanderbilt tower is cool too.
I've spent a decent amount of time in Japan these past few years and the dream housing there is a high rise condo in a newly built all glass buildings. For example, the Mori buldings such as Azabudai Hills.
Sure people enjoy the traditional Japanese architecture especally in the context of temples... but I'm thinking the "old European style buildings" are more like... tourist attractions in Asia. Like Huis Ten Bosch!
Haha you're maybe the first person I've talked to that doesn't feel the need to come up with economic justifications for 5-over-1s or Hudson Yards and just unselfconsciously likes them, which is frankly just pleasant to see as I think we're "business casing" ourselves to death on a lot of things.
I really want to see more variety done in these visual preference studies. Do Brits show a higher preference for their own traditional architecture or will any traditional architecture do? Is it vice versa for Japanese people? Does the ratio of preferring modern to traditional styles change if the modern building stays the same but the traditional style changes culture? How about modern styles that are more specific to a country instead of just the "international style?"
I actually think the presence of "old European style buildings" in theme parks is indicative that there's some sort of mass appeal for that style, in the same way that Disneyland capitalizes on nostalgia for walkable "Main Street USA." But my intuition is that there's nothing magical about specifically European styles and that the average person cares less about specifics and just prefers any style that has more detail/localized symmetry/hierarchical structure/affordances/human scale or whatever else seems to be generally lacking in "modern" styles.
Yes I agree that the Main Street USA is the American equivalent! I also wonder there's a confounding variable of cohesiveness. AKA if a person's architecture rating depends on the environment they live in / what the average building looks like.
When I lived in Oxford UK, obviously I would want more Oxford-style buildings and not modern monstrosities because it would stand out like a sore thumb. Like in Paris you walk around and all of the buildings look very similar and blend together except for that god awful ugly skyscraper Tour Montparnasse.
On the other hand, in Japan you walk around and each building is just completely different from the building next to it. There's no "fitting in" / cohesiveness to maintain. Like that one metaphor of european cities as a giant historical museum... feel like I read that in an abundance movement work in progress article or something like that haha.
Maybe I'll get dragged (to the extent that urbanist substack drags people) for saying this but I actually think that some of the only times I like modernist or especially post-modernist styles are when they're in otherwise entirely traditional environments where they have a ton of contrast. I get that you could reasonably describe it as parasitic, since if you scaled it you would wipe out all of the contrast but hey, the heart wants what it wants. I'm probably in the minority there so it would be interesting to see if there's a way to measure cohesiveness
Komar & Melamid did this with panache. Artnet: "In the 1990s, Komar & Melamid would realize their most-widely known work, “The People’s Choice.” These were paintings based on a series of polls, where they gathered data about the most-liked and least-liked kinds of art from publics in various countries, and then created works that incorporated all the best and worst traits. (By this method, almost all countries end up preferring figurative art where a historical figure is near a body of water, and hating some form of geometric abstraction.)" Producing horrible horrible paintings from the polled preferences.