Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Architecture Forum
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:09 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,284 posts, read 12,932,345 times
Reputation: 8956

Advertisements

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.



Last edited by imcurious; 07-05-2012 at 09:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2012, 09:39 PM
hsw
 
2,144 posts, read 7,165,602 times
Reputation: 1540
Not sure architects necessarily have great taste
Suspect many have dubious taste and poor sense of practicality/costs/ROI vs any buyer (who pays the bills)
Suspect most productive businesses choose offices based upon overall ROI vs needs/desires of most productive workers
And in era of mobile computing/telecommuting, notion of costly trophy offices in some overtaxed welfare CBD is fairly Luddite (and moronic)....where do most of today's youngest billionaires choose to work??: Some mundane low-lying, nondescript, cheap office complex (w/ample parking) in suburban SiliconValley, nr their suburban home (private chefs, etc will travel to whichever major offices in suburbs to cook for workers: no one "needs" to live/work in slums of SF or NYC or LA to obtain decent grub while working)....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:02 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,284 posts, read 12,932,345 times
Reputation: 8956
I don't know the history of American architecture and the relationships with city planners, but in previous decades (prior to the 1950's) American cities had many absolutely beautiful buildings . . . AMAZING architecture of different influences . . .and then, CRAP, and more CRAP . . . Why?

And who are these horrible architects and how can they show their faces in public?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:03 PM
 
Location: White House, TN
6,486 posts, read 6,189,271 times
Reputation: 4584
I blame it on the cookie-cutter movement. Things are far more prefabricated and cookie-cutter now. While it's more economical, looks (and build quality) have suffered greatly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Michigan
4,647 posts, read 8,605,790 times
Reputation: 3776
Cash rules everything and architecture is not exempt from this.

It saves money to make a building that just does what it needs to do. If you want flowing design, intricate details, and long lasting clean materials, it costs money. Most architects take many many many years before they get hired by big companies or organizations to design something with a large budget or large impact (like something bigger than a suburb's city hall). You also have to take into account what's trendy or popular and what style that organization may be going for. Some cities (or client I should say) are quite conservative and their architecture will reflect that while more liberal clients will experiment with more progressive designs. Architecture is in many ways an extension of those who most likely will use it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:13 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,284 posts, read 12,932,345 times
Reputation: 8956
I guess I am not making my point clear. In decades prior to the 1950's, beauty in architecture was valued enough that most buildings were built with beauty, as well as function in mind. Many of these beautiful buildings are still standing, as testament to times when simple economics was not the ONLY thing that mattered.

Why did that change and and what exact point in time?

Did the general population notice that buildings were becoming hideous?

What did the talented architects think, assuming there were some? Why did they not take to the streets, literally?

Are there books written about this phenomenon?

You can't say simply that economics is everything because some people value art and beauty and would have wanted beautiful buildings versus ugly buildings . . .

Why was there a tipping point to UGLY? Who decided UGLY was the way to go?

And once things were GOOD AND UGLY, why did no one care?

Where are the upstart architects who would like to make America beautiful again?

What are they doing of import?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:16 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,173 posts, read 13,261,443 times
Reputation: 10145
Quote:
Originally Posted by imcurious View Post
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.


The word "cheap" comes to mind. It is probably alot cheaper to produce buildings that look like plain boxes than to produce grand stone buildings with ornate detailing. So for one example, lets build our new buildings out of concrete so they match the sidewalks! And lets call it the "Brutalist style" to give it some kind of legitimatcy. Brutalist architecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Think about it like this, if 5 architects compete in a contest to say build a shopping center, in a capitalist society the owner is very often going to pick the cheapest plan. He or she is really not concerned about what the building looks like 100 years for now, or even if it still exists.

Unfortunatly even governments take the cheap route nowdays also. For instance, many government housing projects look like something out of the old communist bloc. They certainly did not help give public housing a good name!

A final note, compare the cold modernist concrete 1969 Boston City Hall to older government buildings in nearby areas using historic and/or traditional architecture.

Boston City Hall File:Plaza8.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philadelphia City Hall File:Philadelphia-CityHall-2006.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New York City Hall File:New York City Hall.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baltimore City Hall File:1city hall baltimore.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Montreal City Hall File:Montreal City Hall Jan 2006.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Massachusetts State House File:Mass statehouse eb1.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Connecticut State Capitol File:Connecticut State Capitol, Hartford.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New York State Capitol File:Washington in Albany.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maryland State House File:MarylandStateHouse (side).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 10:28 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,284 posts, read 12,932,345 times
Reputation: 8956
Is there a way to make those pictures show without having to go to the websites? Can you upload them? I would love to study them and compare them on this thread.

OMG. I would have thought that Boston would have retained a beautiful, old building. I wonder what they tore down to replace with that monstrosity?

I love the Philadelphia City Hall. Amazing!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:05 PM
 
Location: New Hampshire
2,257 posts, read 8,176,163 times
Reputation: 4108
Quote:
Originally Posted by imcurious View Post
OMG. I would have thought that Boston would have retained a beautiful, old building. I wonder what they tore down to replace with that monstrosity?
The Old City Hall in Boston is still standing. It is in the French Second Empire style (like Philadelphia's, but much smaller - and completed 36 years earlier).




The Brutalist monstrosity of the new City Hall Plaza was built upon the former location of Scollay Square, a dense, historic part of downtown Boston's urban fabric. The architecture doesn't offend me as much as the reminder of how this area was demolished for the sake of "Urban Renewal."

Here's a before and after image:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:26 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,284 posts, read 12,932,345 times
Reputation: 8956
I don't know what to say. The beautiful buildings are so moving . . . did the "after" cityscape cause any uproar in the community? I can't understand what people were thinking when amazingly beautiful buildings were torn down to make way for uninspiring, depressing "containers."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Architecture Forum

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top