Are "Modern" American Architects Simply Not Creative or Talented? (costs, plan)
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.
Unfortunately, Scollay Square suffered from a reputation for debauchery and criminal activity, so many residents of the city welcomed its destruction and replacement with the monumental City Hall Plaza, the ultimate implementation of the "infinite space" concept lauded by the urban planners of that era.
The other great Urban Renewal tragedy of the '50s and '60s in Boston - the demolition of the historic West End and its Corbusian-inspired reconstruction - was more controversial, largely because it displaced thousands.
all the great architecture of the world was built before the rise of the automobile. so the rise of car 'culture' along with consumer culture and the assembly line changed everything. producing great art and great architecture takes a lot of time and patience. they cannot be mass-produced. but in an age of consumerism and instant gratification anything that cannot be quickly and cheaply mass-produced, won't be produced at all. there's no pedestrian culture. people now only care about getting from point a to point b as fast as their steel box will take them, like robots. they could care less what the buildings look like. when you're going 0 to 80 mph in 9 seconds they're just a blur anyways.
Oh please. Your idea of 'beautiful' architecture is purely subjective. There is plenty of very interesting modern architecture. Just because the current trends aren't what you like, doesn't mean they're ugly.
I believe much of it has to do with cost, availability, and rarity of materials. It is frowned upon to carve huge slabs of granite and marble out of a mountainside. Mahogany used to be quite common in mansions and fancy building but is now very rare and protected.
Cost-wise many buildings are being constructed of prefabricated materials. Many buildings have material lives that seem to match depreciation schedules and often the buildings are razed and rebuilt as opposed to refurbished when they reach the end of their scheduled life.
As James Howard Knustler states, many of these buildings are "places not worth caring about."
There are many examples of good architecture since the 1990's. The glass-and-steel model that dominated downtowns for so long has been updated. Why the minimalist style ruled so long is controversial. Some say it is a result of WWII, most architects having served, utilitarian lacking beauty. Others say all architects were male back then. And the suburbs built at the time (e.g. Levittown) were even less inspiring though they served the purpose of creating mass-produced shelter.
Here's my opinion. We became a car focused society (rather than walking or public transport) so the facade mattered less, money that could have been spent on facade when into parking lots & garages, and each corporation had to spend more money on real estate to support more buildings (sprawl), so the net cost of each building had to be less.
All of this is post WWII:
1) Many people pre WWII didn't know how to drive, but driving for the army changed that.
2) Home ownership (vs renting) pre WWII was in the 40% range, and rose to about 60% between 1940-1960.
3) The 30 year mortgage with small down payment was invented in 1948. Before that, 7 years were most common, though 20 were available and most down payments were in the 20-50% range.
4) GI Bill payments and government backed loans helped drive that 20% rise in 20 years.
5) The US economy was relatively undamaged post-WWII and our war machine companies returned to building cars instead of tanks at a high rate.
6) The pre-fab and concrete construction of military outposts and public services was further refined to push houses up much more quickly.
7) Transport and the interstate system pushed housing even farther outwards.
The thread on America's most boring-looking cities got me wondering what exactly makes American cities so ugly and uninspiring. I know in previous decades (prior to the 1950's), there were talented American architects . . .you can see the remnants in certain old buildings that were preserved or at least not torn down in the name of "progress."
In the Fifties I believe concrete block buildings became standard - in the Sixties you had the advent of the hideous strip mall . . . I just wonder about the so-called "architects" who designed these ugly buildings all over America - from say the 1960's up until the 1990's.
I don't know the relationships between city planners and architects, but someone decided that all of America had to be driven, architecturally, by McDonald's, Shell gas stations, and Subways by every freeway entrance and exit . . .
. . . And that there could be no inspiring architecture . . .I don't know if they had not an artistic bone in their bodies or if they never visited Europe, or studied "A Pattern Language . . . "
As a lay person, I have no idea why much of Modern American "architecture" is so damn ugly.
It's not the architect's fault. There are quite a few amazingly beautiful modern homes and commercial buildings out there.
The problem is the public's expectations and the builder's bottom line.
Architecture (especially the average American home) is divorced from art; there generally isn't an expectation that a tract home or strip mall be beautiful, only functional and "low maintenance".
That suits the builders just fine, since it's far more expensive to build an artistic structure.
Plus, (like I whined about in another thread) the focus is on what's inside a building rather than what's outside of it. We've made a world for ourselves where a person usually travels from one climate controlled interior environment to another, hopefully as quickly as possible.
Is it any wonder we don't put a whole lot of our attention on what's in between?
It's not the architect's fault. There are quite a few amazingly beautiful modern homes and commercial buildings out there.
The problem is the public's expectations and the builder's bottom line.
Architecture (especially the average American home) is divorced from art; there generally isn't an expectation that a tract home or strip mall be beautiful, only functional and "low maintenance".
That suits the builders just fine, since it's far more expensive to build an artistic structure.
Plus, (like I whined about in another thread) the focus is on what's inside a building rather than what's outside of it. We've made a world for ourselves where a person usually travels from one climate controlled interior environment to another, hopefully as quickly as possible.
Is it any wonder we don't put a whole lot of our attention on what's in between?
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?
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.
