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.)
I was going to make the same point about music. (And probably the same thing can be said about visual art, though I suspect that appreciation for abstract art may be higher as long as it’s otherwise visually appealing.) I also like John Adams, though much of his music is relatively tonal. (I’m not a fan of Dr. Atomic, but that’s because the singing is mostly declamatory rather than musical. I find the orchestral writing to be powerful - and I’m far from an expert on music theory). As you imply, there are contemporary composers whose music is actually listenable, more so in recent years, but I don’t enjoy the serial and 12-tone music of the type championed by, say, Pierre Boulez.
I'm confused. You say modern buildings are cluttered? To me the classic buildings with all their superfluous decoration look much more cluttered. Was there a typo?
When I drive into DC there's some buildings that look like blocks piled on top of one another. Yes it's striking, but from a maintenance perspective, lots of potential places water can get in, and the shape inside is disjointed, making them harder to live or work in. i.e. They were designed for show, not designed as buildings with a purpose.
I think a problem with the discussion is that "modern" can mean a lot of things. Bauhaus, a international style skyscraper and the proposed Royal Albert Museum all have very little in common. One person might be thinking of a brutalist, social housing building in the UK and another person of a Ando museum on Naoshima.
Maybe all styles can be shitty and awesome. I think we should just build, build, build till housing costs are so low that the dire need is gone. While I have taste preferences, I just want massive amounts of housing build.
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.
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.
Agreed! Buildings' exteriors have externalities, so it's not crazy to be concerned with how they look, but we should really be conducting these surveys with pics of the inside as well.
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.
"They wanted people to..." and therein lies their folly.
Architects are builders, not some enlightened priestly class magically levitating above the lowly builders. And builders are supposed to listen to what people want, then figure out how to do that. The leeway and red carpet treatment that has been granted to "visionary" architects for the last 100 years has been largely, we can now confidently say, unwarranted.
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.
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?
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.
The modernist buildings in these pictures aren't cheap to build, and they definitely aren't cheap to maintain. I really don't think you can explain this with cost, and you definitely can't explain the divergence between expert and lay opinion just based on cost.
The divergence is because architects understand costs. Whereas a normal person looks at different layers and rooflines and thinks it looks nice, an architect sees severe water leakage risks, and high construction costs.
Yeah, building is already not cheap. Ornamentation is simply extra cost.
I simply don't think this hypothesis is adequate to explain the data that we observe. Look at the building from Halpern's study that was bottom-ranked by laypersons; does it look like something with good drainage and low construction costs? In fact modernist architecture is famous for high maintenance costs; another commenter here noted that the Lloyd's building costs as much each your to maintain as it cost to build in the first place. The Create Streets alternative proposals for Christ's College and Marks & Spencer were specifically designed to achieve comparable costs; so this definitely can't be simply about perceived construction expense. Prestige modernist buildings are often very expensive to construct!
Not shocked that people prefer traditional architecture but stunned by how overwhelming the preference is. As noted, people don't take into account the cost of traditional forms of architecture. Bricklaying as slower and more expensive than putting up metal panels or precast concrete. That cost is inevitably passed onto occupants in the form of higher rents. That cost is also ongoing, as masonry buildings require much more upkeep than other cladding types (see Local Law 11 in New York City).
Also to note is the rise of modernist architecture coincided with an accelerating capitalist economy that demanded new forms of construction. Reinforced concrete, structural steel, and curtain wall glazing enabled architects and developers to maximize floor area, increase density, and reduce construction constraints. The modernist emphasis on functionalism and efficiency reflected a broader economic logic in which buildings were increasingly conceived as optimized assets, designed to accommodate expanding systems of production, administration, and consumption. This logic still holds up today and ultimately drives much of the design we see around us. Developers want to maximize floor areas, glazing ratios, and spans, in order to maximize the space they can lease out.
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.
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.
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 was going to make the same point about music. (And probably the same thing can be said about visual art, though I suspect that appreciation for abstract art may be higher as long as it’s otherwise visually appealing.) I also like John Adams, though much of his music is relatively tonal. (I’m not a fan of Dr. Atomic, but that’s because the singing is mostly declamatory rather than musical. I find the orchestral writing to be powerful - and I’m far from an expert on music theory). As you imply, there are contemporary composers whose music is actually listenable, more so in recent years, but I don’t enjoy the serial and 12-tone music of the type championed by, say, Pierre Boulez.
If you haven't heard Moby Dick, that's a bit of an audience pleaser (different composer but was written about 10 years ago https://www.kennedy-center.org/education/resources-for-educators/classroom-resources/media-and-interactives/media/opera/rep/modern/moby-dick/ ). The most challenging piece I've heard in the last 25 years at the WNO was Sophie's Choice. Half the audience walked out at the interval. Those of us who remained saw one of the most emotionally draining performances I'd ever seen and heard from very challenging music. It was one of those you'll either hate it or love it pieces https://www.kennedy-center.org/education/resources-for-educators/classroom-resources/media-and-interactives/media/opera/rep/modern/sophies-choice/
I'm not familiar with him. (Nor do I know more than really basic music theory).
I'm confused. You say modern buildings are cluttered? To me the classic buildings with all their superfluous decoration look much more cluttered. Was there a typo?
I've thinking of proposed buildings like the Royal Albert Museum extension. https://www.inkl.com/news/doomed-architecture-london-s-greatest-unbuilt-buildings-include-a-glowing-pod-and-a-giant-glass-pyramid
When I drive into DC there's some buildings that look like blocks piled on top of one another. Yes it's striking, but from a maintenance perspective, lots of potential places water can get in, and the shape inside is disjointed, making them harder to live or work in. i.e. They were designed for show, not designed as buildings with a purpose.
I think a problem with the discussion is that "modern" can mean a lot of things. Bauhaus, a international style skyscraper and the proposed Royal Albert Museum all have very little in common. One person might be thinking of a brutalist, social housing building in the UK and another person of a Ando museum on Naoshima.
Maybe all styles can be shitty and awesome. I think we should just build, build, build till housing costs are so low that the dire need is gone. While I have taste preferences, I just want massive amounts of housing build.
That only works if people want to live there. They deserve nice buildings to live in too, even if they are cheap 🙂
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.
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.
Agreed! Buildings' exteriors have externalities, so it's not crazy to be concerned with how they look, but we should really be conducting these surveys with pics of the inside as well.
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.
"They wanted people to..." and therein lies their folly.
Architects are builders, not some enlightened priestly class magically levitating above the lowly builders. And builders are supposed to listen to what people want, then figure out how to do that. The leeway and red carpet treatment that has been granted to "visionary" architects for the last 100 years has been largely, we can now confidently say, unwarranted.
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.
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?
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.
>In other words, there seems to be a mysterious divergence between people’s stated and revealed preferences.
It's not mysterious at all. People also prefer steak to hamburgers but eat more hamburgers. The divergence is due to real economic costs.
https://shonczinner.substack.com/p/subsidizing-homeownership-is-like
The modernist buildings in these pictures aren't cheap to build, and they definitely aren't cheap to maintain. I really don't think you can explain this with cost, and you definitely can't explain the divergence between expert and lay opinion just based on cost.
The divergence is because architects understand costs. Whereas a normal person looks at different layers and rooflines and thinks it looks nice, an architect sees severe water leakage risks, and high construction costs.
Yeah, building is already not cheap. Ornamentation is simply extra cost.
I simply don't think this hypothesis is adequate to explain the data that we observe. Look at the building from Halpern's study that was bottom-ranked by laypersons; does it look like something with good drainage and low construction costs? In fact modernist architecture is famous for high maintenance costs; another commenter here noted that the Lloyd's building costs as much each your to maintain as it cost to build in the first place. The Create Streets alternative proposals for Christ's College and Marks & Spencer were specifically designed to achieve comparable costs; so this definitely can't be simply about perceived construction expense. Prestige modernist buildings are often very expensive to construct!
People don’t realise that they are gazing at and fitting in, or fitting on - “the will of the epoch”.
Not shocked that people prefer traditional architecture but stunned by how overwhelming the preference is. As noted, people don't take into account the cost of traditional forms of architecture. Bricklaying as slower and more expensive than putting up metal panels or precast concrete. That cost is inevitably passed onto occupants in the form of higher rents. That cost is also ongoing, as masonry buildings require much more upkeep than other cladding types (see Local Law 11 in New York City).
Also to note is the rise of modernist architecture coincided with an accelerating capitalist economy that demanded new forms of construction. Reinforced concrete, structural steel, and curtain wall glazing enabled architects and developers to maximize floor area, increase density, and reduce construction constraints. The modernist emphasis on functionalism and efficiency reflected a broader economic logic in which buildings were increasingly conceived as optimized assets, designed to accommodate expanding systems of production, administration, and consumption. This logic still holds up today and ultimately drives much of the design we see around us. Developers want to maximize floor areas, glazing ratios, and spans, in order to maximize the space they can lease out.
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.
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
The core dynamic here reflects an unresolved dialectic between algorithmic determinism and contextual heuristics.
Also I wrote about why despite the overwhelming taste preference, we don't building like this anymore: https://gideontamir.substack.com/p/why-dont-we-build-like-this-anymore?r=9b2or