Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today, architects for the most part design large institutional buildings, along with housing for the wealthy. Housing for everyone else often has no architect involved whatsoever, or if so, in a very minimal fashion, with the architect overruled by the builder repeatedly, who is worried about their bottom line and scaring away potential customers.
It worked in exactly the same way 100 years ago. With the possible exception that architects actually designed factories back then, which are now featureless metal boxes. Still, mass-produced housing was not something architects did. At best, they designed a base plan which was modified by builders as they went along.
There are a lot of things you can blame architects for, like the brutalist monstrosities built in the 1960s and 1970s on many college campuses. But you cant blame them for the ugly state of modern housing.
Not sure how you slipped "ugly housing" in there . . .we haven't gotten to that yet . . .talking about cities and buildings in cities . . .
Ugly buildings: Hospitals, medical buildings, strip mall commercial buildings (a pet peeve of mine is when they have a lawn or commercial landscaping outside the building, in front . . .instead of taking that land and putting it inside to make a courtyard or plaza where people could actually commune - no, they stick the land outside the building where you can't access it - it is totally wasted space. If they moved the building itself closer to the street and made room for a courtyard, they would be restoring community to the people and life would be nicer for everyone.)
I don't know how these values are decided and by whom.
European towns and cites are artistic and soulful . . .
If you asked Americans if they preferred something inspiring or something butt cheap and ugly, do you assume they would pick ugly?
Who makes (or made) decisions on tearing down beautiful, architecturally inspiring buildings and replacing them with crap? Why are (or were) communities not in an uproar?
And why are architects such a silent group?
Why aren't they more political?
Why aren't they writing protesting blogs and exposing the politics of city planners?
Why are city planners so dull and unimaginative in modern days?
Nobody decided them... they just *are*.
You have to look at the culture to understand why... any given culture's built environments will be a more-or less direct reflection on both the priorities and ideals of that culture.
We are no different... You can see America's ideals and true nature reflected in it's modern-day construction... especially in domestic architecture.
It tells me we need to change a couple fundamental things about what it means to be an American, but that's easier said than done.
You have to look at the culture to understand why... any given culture's built environments will be a more-or less direct reflection on both the priorities and ideals of that culture.
You can see America's ideals and true nature reflected in it's modern-day construction... especially in domestic architecture.
It tells me we need to change a couple fundamental things about what it means to be an American, but that's easier said than done.
Do you really think some committee got together after WWII and purposely decided to build a bunch of ugly misproportioned garages with houses attached, interspersed with cinderblock big-box marts and styrofoam 'n stucco burger chains?
It wasn't done on purpose. It's simply what happens when a culture that values the individual over the group, loves personal mobility, prefers quantity over quality and is obsessed with making money off each other decides to build a civilization.
Not sure how you slipped "ugly housing" in there . . .we haven't gotten to that yet . . .talking about cities and buildings in cities . . .
Ugly buildings: Hospitals, medical buildings, strip mall commercial buildings (a pet peeve of mine is when they have a lawn or commercial landscaping outside the building, in front . . .instead of taking that land and putting it inside to make a courtyard or plaza where people could actually commune - no, they stick the land outside the building where you can't access it - it is totally wasted space. If they moved the building itself closer to the street and made room for a courtyard, they would be restoring community to the people and life would be nicer for everyone.)
I don't think architects are always used with strip malls. Generally though, things like strip mall and grocery store design are considered the least desirable design jobs (worse even than new housing) and something firms only do until they build up enough prestige not to have to take those jobs anymore.
Remember also that typically the client sets up cost parameters, and can veto segments of an architect's design and ask them to modify things. Something like a courtyard is nice, but it means you'll need another four walls surrounding the internal courtyard, increasing materials costs considerably.
Also, while I don't give the architecture from 1945 to 1980 or so a free pass by any means, lots of failed ideas were in vogue in both architecture and urban planning at those times. More recent projects do tend to take into account the context for new buildings in a built-up urban core. They were following trends just like most architects in the Victorian era - it's just their tends happened to be ugly as sin.
Really, I think it's part of a broader mid/late 20th century movement. As a reaction against Nazism, consensus went from biological determinism to cultural determinism. That human beings were "blank slates" and infinitely malleable. Thus the established wisdom of the ages for something like urban design could be thrown out - as humans would surely adjust to the new, more "scientific" designs as the new normal. Also, since aesthetic standards are subjective, we can just purposefully create new building forms with no historical antecedents, tell everyone they're beautiful, and it will work!
(my wife is an architect, so I do have some inside information here about the profession)
Do you really think some committee got together after WWII and purposely decided to build a bunch of ugly misproportioned garages with houses attached, interspersed with cinderblock big-box marts and styrofoam 'n stucco burger chains?
It wasn't done on purpose. It's simply what happens when a culture that values the individual over the group, loves personal mobility, prefers quantity over quality and is obsessed with making money off each other decides to build a civilization.
As I said upthread, we are not talking about housing. You obviously have not read the thread.
City planners are supposed to plan cities . . .I am talking about the layouts of cities and commercial and state buildings that make up cities - NOT TALKING ABOUT HOUSING.
I don't think architects are always used with strip malls. Generally though, things like strip mall and grocery store design are considered the least desirable design jobs (worse even than new housing) and something firms only do until they build up enough prestige not to have to take those jobs anymore.
Remember also that typically the client sets up cost parameters, and can veto segments of an architect's design and ask them to modify things. Something like a courtyard is nice, but it means you'll need another four walls surrounding the internal courtyard, increasing materials costs considerably.
Also, while I don't give the architecture from 1945 to 1980 or so a free pass by any means, lots of failed ideas were in vogue in both architecture and urban planning at those times. More recent projects do tend to take into account the context for new buildings in a built-up urban core. They were following trends just like most architects in the Victorian era - it's just their tends happened to be ugly as sin.
Really, I think it's part of a broader mid/late 20th century movement. As a reaction against Nazism, consensus went from biological determinism to cultural determinism. That human beings were "blank slates" and infinitely malleable. Thus the established wisdom of the ages for something like urban design could be thrown out - as humans would surely adjust to the new, more "scientific" designs as the new normal. Also, since aesthetic standards are subjective, we can just purposefully create new building forms with no historical antecedents, tell everyone they're beautiful, and it will work!
(my wife is an architect, so I do have some inside information here about the profession)
What I am referring to would require no additional walls. If buildings were sited closer to the street (with no useless/not functional landscaping in FRONT of the buildings abutting the sidewalk), then that space could be used to create a plaza or courtyard in the entrance to the building where people could gather. As it stands now, the front of modern buildings are useless and lifeless and there is wasted space where horribly ugly commercial "landscaping" is put - instead of actually utilizing that space on the interior of the lot where the entrance is . . .
I don't think architects are always used with strip malls. Generally though, things like strip mall and grocery store design are considered the least desirable design jobs (worse even than new housing) and something firms only do until they build up enough prestige not to have to take those jobs anymore.
Remember also that typically the client sets up cost parameters, and can veto segments of an architect's design and ask them to modify things. Something like a courtyard is nice, but it means you'll need another four walls surrounding the internal courtyard, increasing materials costs considerably.
Also, while I don't give the architecture from 1945 to 1980 or so a free pass by any means, lots of failed ideas were in vogue in both architecture and urban planning at those times. More recent projects do tend to take into account the context for new buildings in a built-up urban core. They were following trends just like most architects in the Victorian era - it's just their tends happened to be ugly as sin.
Really, I think it's part of a broader mid/late 20th century movement. As a reaction against Nazism, consensus went from biological determinism to cultural determinism. That human beings were "blank slates" and infinitely malleable. Thus the established wisdom of the ages for something like urban design could be thrown out - as humans would surely adjust to the new, more "scientific" designs as the new normal. Also, since aesthetic standards are subjective, we can just purposefully create new building forms with no historical antecedents, tell everyone they're beautiful, and it will work!
(my wife is an architect, so I do have some inside information here about the profession)
I wonder what they were teaching in school during the advent of strip malls . . .
As I said upthread, we are not talking about housing. You obviously have not read the thread.
City planners are supposed to plan cities . . .I am talking about the layouts of cities and commercial and state buildings that make up cities - NOT TALKING ABOUT HOUSING.
Because certainly there aren't any houses in cities...
Not to mention I wasn't only talking about housing. You sure are hostile today Im.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
